linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] Correct the processing for base

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <3574470.KuU4jANTQq@aspire.rjw.lan>
Date:   Tue, 26 Mar 2019 12:38:17 +0100
From:   "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
To:     Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     lenb@...nel.org, viresh.kumar@...aro.org,
        linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, pprakash@...eaurora.org,
        wangxiongfeng2@...wei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] Correct the processing for base_frequency

On Monday, March 25, 2019 5:04:38 PM CET Srinivas Pandruvada wrote:
> The base_frequency display in cpufreq sysfs for intel_pstate gets the
> guaranteed ratio by reading CPPC guaranteed performance register as a
> first preference before falling back to x86 MSR for Hardware P-state
> Capabilities. The current code in cppc_acpi.c assumed that "guaranteed
> performance register" can be an integer field, which is invalid as per
> ACPI spec. So this change explicitly check for INTEGER values for
> invalid BIOS/firmware and ignore. 
> Also guaranteed performance register field is optional and when not
> present, nominal performance can be used as the guaranteed performance.
> But spec calls that this is true only in non-autonomous mode. So
> no change is made in cppc_acpi.c to make nominal as guaranteed in this
> case to avoid dependency on autonomous and non-autonomous mode. Instead
> a change is added to intel_pstate driver, which is specific to x86 to
> make nominal as guaranteed when guaranteed performance field is absent
> or has invalid value.
> Also we are working to clarify this non-autonomous mode requirement
> through ACPI standard body.
> 
> v2:
> Changes done as suggested by Rafael.
> 
> 
> Srinivas Pandruvada (2):
>   ACPI / CPPC: Fix processing for guaranteed performance
>   cpufreq: intel_pstate: Also use cppc nominal_perf for base_frequency
> 
>  drivers/acpi/cppc_acpi.c       | 9 +++++++--
>  drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c | 5 ++++-
>  2 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> 

Both applied, thanks!