linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] PM / arch: x86: MSR_IA32_ENERGY_PERF

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: <CAJZ5v0j_gfneFY-7e48Oi5habQd+s3s+aJRN8DQcnJc7yN8CTw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 25 Mar 2019 10:56:42 +0100
From:   "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>, x86 <x86@...nel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>,
        Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
        Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com>,
        Laura Abbott <labbott@...oraproject.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Simon Schricker <sschricker@...e.de>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>, Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] PM / arch: x86: MSR_IA32_ENERGY_PERF_BIAS sysfs interface

On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 4:00 PM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 11:20:17PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > +     ret = rdmsrl_on_cpu(cpu, MSR_IA32_ENERGY_PERF_BIAS, &epb);
> > +     if (ret < 0)
> > +             return ret;
> > +
> > +     ret = wrmsrl_on_cpu(cpu, MSR_IA32_ENERGY_PERF_BIAS,
> > +                         (epb & ~EPB_MASK) | val);
>
> That's two back-to-back IPIs and a giant waste.

Giant with respect to what?

I know that the read can be avoidable if more MSR bits are stored in
memory, but I don't expect this i/f to be used very often (once per
boot maybe or on AC<->DC changes at most), so I didn't think that this
would be a good tradeoff.

> If you'd use a proper msr shadow variable, you'd not have to do the
> rdmsr_on_cpu :-)

Not really.

The MSR can be updated from elsewhere which is not controlled by this code.