linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] sched/cpufreq: Align trace event behavior of fast switching

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]

Date:   Wed, 28 Aug 2019 11:44:30 +0200
From:   "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     Douglas RAILLARD <douglas.raillard@....com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
        viresh.kumar@...aro.org, mingo@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/cpufreq: Align trace event behavior of fast switching

On Monday, August 26, 2019 11:40:58 AM CEST Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 11:10:52AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Wednesday, August 7, 2019 5:33:40 PM CEST Douglas RAILLARD wrote:
> > > Fast switching path only emits an event for the CPU of interest, whereas the
> > > regular path emits an event for all the CPUs that had their frequency changed,
> > > i.e. all the CPUs sharing the same policy.
> > > 
> > > With the current behavior, looking at cpu_frequency event for a given CPU that
> > > is using the fast switching path will not give the correct frequency signal.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Douglas RAILLARD <douglas.raillard@....com>
> > > ---
> > >  kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c | 7 ++++++-
> > >  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c b/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c
> > > index 1f82ab108bab..975ccc3de807 100644
> > > --- a/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c
> > > +++ b/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c
> > > @@ -153,6 +153,7 @@ static void sugov_fast_switch(struct sugov_policy *sg_policy, u64 time,
> > >  			      unsigned int next_freq)
> > >  {
> > >  	struct cpufreq_policy *policy = sg_policy->policy;
> > > +	int cpu;
> > >  
> > >  	if (!sugov_update_next_freq(sg_policy, time, next_freq))
> > >  		return;
> > > @@ -162,7 +163,11 @@ static void sugov_fast_switch(struct sugov_policy *sg_policy, u64 time,
> > >  		return;
> > >  
> > >  	policy->cur = next_freq;
> > > -	trace_cpu_frequency(next_freq, smp_processor_id());
> > > +
> > > +	if (trace_cpu_frequency_enabled()) {
> > > +		for_each_cpu(cpu, policy->cpus)
> > > +			trace_cpu_frequency(next_freq, cpu);
> > > +	}
> > >  }
> > >  
> > >  static void sugov_deferred_update(struct sugov_policy *sg_policy, u64 time,
> > > 
> > 
> > Peter, any comments here?
> 
> I was thinking this would be a static map and dealing with it would be
> something trivially done in post (or manually while reading), but sure,
> whatever:
> 
> Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@...radead.org>
> 

Thanks, queuing up this one for 5.4.