linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V2] cpufreq: Call transition notifier only once for each policy

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]

Date:   Mon, 18 Mar 2019 12:20:00 +0100
From:   "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
        Rafael Wysocki <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        "the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@...nel.org>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com>,
        Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        sparclinux@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] cpufreq: Call transition notifier only once for each policy

On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 12:09 PM Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 11:54 AM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 08:05:14AM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > > On 15-03-19, 13:29, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 02:43:07PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > > > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/tsc.c b/arch/x86/kernel/tsc.c
> > > > > index 3fae23834069..cff8779fc0d2 100644
> > > > > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/tsc.c
> > > > > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/tsc.c
> > > > > @@ -956,28 +956,38 @@ static int time_cpufreq_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb, unsigned long val,
> > > > >                           void *data)
> > > > >  {
> > > > >   struct cpufreq_freqs *freq = data;
> > > > > - unsigned long *lpj;
> > > > > -
> > > > > - lpj = &boot_cpu_data.loops_per_jiffy;
> > > > > -#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
> > > > > - if (!(freq->flags & CPUFREQ_CONST_LOOPS))
> > > > > -         lpj = &cpu_data(freq->cpu).loops_per_jiffy;
> > > > > -#endif
> > > > > + struct cpumask *cpus = freq->policy->cpus;
> > > > > + bool boot_cpu = !IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_SMP) || freq->flags & CPUFREQ_CONST_LOOPS;
> > > > > + unsigned long lpj;
> > > > > + int cpu;
> > > > >
> > > > >   if (!ref_freq) {
> > > > >           ref_freq = freq->old;
> > > > > -         loops_per_jiffy_ref = *lpj;
> > > > >           tsc_khz_ref = tsc_khz;
> > > > > +
> > > > > +         if (boot_cpu)
> > > > > +                 loops_per_jiffy_ref = boot_cpu_data.loops_per_jiffy;
> > > > > +         else
> > > > > +                 loops_per_jiffy_ref = cpu_data(cpumask_first(cpus)).loops_per_jiffy;
> > > > >   }
> > > > > +
> > > > >   if ((val == CPUFREQ_PRECHANGE  && freq->old < freq->new) ||
> > > > >                   (val == CPUFREQ_POSTCHANGE && freq->old > freq->new)) {
> > > > > -         *lpj = cpufreq_scale(loops_per_jiffy_ref, ref_freq, freq->new);
> > > > > -
> > > > > +         lpj = cpufreq_scale(loops_per_jiffy_ref, ref_freq, freq->new);
> > > > >           tsc_khz = cpufreq_scale(tsc_khz_ref, ref_freq, freq->new);
> > > > > +
> > > > >           if (!(freq->flags & CPUFREQ_CONST_LOOPS))
> > > > >                   mark_tsc_unstable("cpufreq changes");
> > > > >
> > > > > -         set_cyc2ns_scale(tsc_khz, freq->cpu, rdtsc());
> > > > > +         if (boot_cpu) {
> > > > > +                 boot_cpu_data.loops_per_jiffy = lpj;
> > > > > +         } else {
> > > > > +                 for_each_cpu(cpu, cpus)
> > > > > +                         cpu_data(cpu).loops_per_jiffy = lpj;
> > > > > +         }
> > > > > +
> > > > > +         for_each_cpu(cpu, cpus)
> > > > > +                 set_cyc2ns_scale(tsc_khz, cpu, rdtsc());
> > > >
> > > > This code doesn't make sense, the rdtsc() _must_ be called on the CPU in
> > > > question.
> > >
> > > You mean rdtsc() must be locally on that CPU? The cpufreq core never guaranteed
> > > that and it was left for the notifier to do. This patch doesn't change the
> > > behavior at all, just that it moves the for-loop to the notifier instead of the
> > > cpufreq core.
> >
> > Yuck..
> >
> > Rafael; how does this work in practise? Earlier you said that on x86 the
> > policies typically have a single cpu in them anyway.
>
> Yes.
>
> > Is the freq change also notified from _that_ cpu?
>
> May not be, depending on what CPU runs the work item/thread changing
> the freq.  It generally is not guaranteed to always be the same as the
> target CPU.

Actually, scratch that.

On x86, with one CPU per cpufreq policy, that will always be the target CPU.

> > I don't think I have old enough hardware around anymore to test any of
> > this. This was truly ancient p6 era stuff IIRC.
> >
> > Because in that case, I'm all for not doing the changes to this notifier
> > Viresh is proposing but simply adding something like:
> >
> >
> >         WARN_ON_ONCE(cpumask_weight(cpuc) != 1);
> >         WARN_ON_ONCE(cpumask_first(cpuc) != smp_processor_id());
> >
> > And leave it at that.
>
> That may not work I'm afraid.

So something like that could work.