linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1] arch_topology: Make cpu

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20190307072856.GC29753@localhost.localdomain>
Date:   Thu, 7 Mar 2019 08:28:56 +0100
From:   Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...il.com>
To:     Lingutla Chandrasekhar <clingutla@...eaurora.org>
Cc:     quentin.perret@....com, sudeep.holla@....com,
        dietmar.eggemann@....com, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
        will.deacon@....com, catalin.marinas@....com,
        morten.rasmussen@....com, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        jeremy.linton@....com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] arch_topology: Make cpu_capacity sysfs node as
 ready-only

Hi,

On 06/03/19 20:57, Lingutla Chandrasekhar wrote:
> If user updates any cpu's cpu_capacity, then the new value is going to
> be applied to all its online sibling cpus. But this need not to be correct
> always, as sibling cpus (in ARM, same micro architecture cpus) would have
> different cpu_capacity with different performance characteristics.
> So updating the user supplied cpu_capacity to all cpu siblings
> is not correct.
> 
> And another problem is, current code assumes that 'all cpus in a cluster
> or with same package_id (core_siblings), would have same cpu_capacity'.
> But with commit '5bdd2b3f0f8 ("arm64: topology: add support to remove
> cpu topology sibling masks")', when a cpu hotplugged out, the cpu
> information gets cleared in its sibling cpus. So user supplied
> cpu_capacity would be applied to only online sibling cpus at the time.
> After that, if any cpu hot plugged in, it would have different cpu_capacity
> than its siblings, which breaks the above assumption.
> 
> So instead of mucking around the core sibling mask for user supplied
> value, use device-tree to set cpu capacity. And make the cpu_capacity
> node as read-only to know the assymetry between cpus in the system.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Lingutla Chandrasekhar <clingutla@...eaurora.org>
> ---
>  drivers/base/arch_topology.c | 33 +--------------------------------
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 32 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/base/arch_topology.c b/drivers/base/arch_topology.c
> index edfcf8d..d455897 100644
> --- a/drivers/base/arch_topology.c
> +++ b/drivers/base/arch_topology.c
> @@ -7,7 +7,6 @@
>   */
>  
>  #include <linux/acpi.h>
> -#include <linux/arch_topology.h>
>  #include <linux/cpu.h>
>  #include <linux/cpufreq.h>
>  #include <linux/device.h>
> @@ -51,37 +50,7 @@ static ssize_t cpu_capacity_show(struct device *dev,
>  static void update_topology_flags_workfn(struct work_struct *work);
>  static DECLARE_WORK(update_topology_flags_work, update_topology_flags_workfn);
>  
> -static ssize_t cpu_capacity_store(struct device *dev,
> -				  struct device_attribute *attr,
> -				  const char *buf,
> -				  size_t count)
> -{
> -	struct cpu *cpu = container_of(dev, struct cpu, dev);
> -	int this_cpu = cpu->dev.id;
> -	int i;
> -	unsigned long new_capacity;
> -	ssize_t ret;
> -
> -	if (!count)
> -		return 0;
> -
> -	ret = kstrtoul(buf, 0, &new_capacity);
> -	if (ret)
> -		return ret;
> -	if (new_capacity > SCHED_CAPACITY_SCALE)
> -		return -EINVAL;
> -
> -	mutex_lock(&cpu_scale_mutex);
> -	for_each_cpu(i, &cpu_topology[this_cpu].core_sibling)
> -		topology_set_cpu_scale(i, new_capacity);
> -	mutex_unlock(&cpu_scale_mutex);
> -
> -	schedule_work(&update_topology_flags_work);
> -
> -	return count;
> -}
> -
> -static DEVICE_ATTR_RW(cpu_capacity);
> +static DEVICE_ATTR_RO(cpu_capacity);

There are cases in which this needs to be RW, as recently discussed
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20181123135807.GA14964@e107155-lin/

IMHO, if the core_sibling assumption doesn't work in all cases, one
should be looking into fixing it, rather than making this RO.

Best,

- Juri