linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 3/5] x86/umwait: Add sysfs interface to control umwait C0.2 state

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: <20190617181142.GA217081@romley-ivt3.sc.intel.com>
Date:   Mon, 17 Jun 2019 11:11:42 -0700
From:   Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>
To:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        H Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com>,
        Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@...el.com>,
        Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
        Ravi V Shankar <ravi.v.shankar@...el.com>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, x86 <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 3/5] x86/umwait: Add sysfs interface to control umwait
 C0.2 state

On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 08:14:44AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 10:27 AM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> >
> >
> > (can you, perchance, look at a MUA that isn't 'broken' ?)
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 09:04:30AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > On Jun 11, 2019, at 1:54 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> On Fri, Jun 07, 2019 at 03:00:35PM -0700, Fenghua Yu wrote:
> > > >> C0.2 state in umwait and tpause instructions can be enabled or disabled
> > > >> on a processor through IA32_UMWAIT_CONTROL MSR register.
> > > >>
> > > >> By default, C0.2 is enabled and the user wait instructions result in
> > > >> lower power consumption with slower wakeup time.
> > > >>
> > > >> But in real time systems which require faster wakeup time although power
> > > >> savings could be smaller, the administrator needs to disable C0.2 and all
> > > >> C0.2 requests from user applications revert to C0.1.
> > > >>
> > > >> A sysfs interface "/sys/devices/system/cpu/umwait_control/enable_c02" is
> > > >> created to allow the administrator to control C0.2 state during run time.
> > > >
> > > > We already have an interface for applications to convey their latency
> > > > requirements (pm-qos). We do not need another magic sys variable.
> > >
> > > I’m not sure I agree.  This isn’t an overall latency request, and
> > > setting an absurdly low pm_qos will badly hurt idle power and turbo
> > > performance.  Also, pm_qos isn’t exactly beautiful.
> > >
> > > (I speak from some experience. I may be literally the only person to
> > > write a driver that listens to dev_pm_qos latency requests. And, in my
> > > production box, I directly disable c states instead of messing with
> > > pm_qos.)
> > >
> > > I do wonder whether anyone will ever use this particular control, though.
> >
> > I agree that pm-qos is pretty terrible; but that doesn't mean we should
> > just add random control files all over the place.
> 
> I don't think pm-qos is expressive enough.  It seems entirely
> reasonable to want to do a C0.1 wait for lower latency *while waiting*
> but still want full power-saving idle when not waiting.
> 
> Do we even know what the C0.2 and C0.1 latencies are?  And why is this
> thing an MSR instead of a flag passed to UMWAIT?

I will still keep this sysfs interface in the next version of patches, right?

Thanks.

-Fenghua