linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC] sched/fair: Penalty the cfs task which executes mwait/hlt

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: <1868711.0LYWRWiNKV@kreacher>
Date:   Tue, 14 Jan 2020 23:46:18 +0100
From:   "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@...il.com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, kvm <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>,
        Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
        KarimAllah <karahmed@...zon.de>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Ankur Arora <ankur.a.arora@...cle.com>,
        christopher.s.hall@...el.com, hubert.chrzaniuk@...el.com,
        len.brown@...el.com, thomas.lendacky@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] sched/fair: Penalty the cfs task which executes mwait/hlt

On Monday, January 13, 2020 1:29:11 PM CET Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 12:18:46PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Monday, January 13, 2020 11:43:14 AM CET Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> 
> > > Anyone, what will it take to get MPERF/TSC 'working' ?
> > 
> > The same thing that intel_pstate does.
> 
> But intel_pstate cheats, it has a FMS listing and possible 'interesting'
> chips are excluded. For instance, Core2 has APERF/MPERF, but
> intel_pstate does not support Core2.
> 
> Simlarly, intel_pstate does (obviously) not support AMD chips, even tho
> those have APERF/MPERF.
> 
> Although I suppose Core2 doesn't have VMX and is therefore less
> interesting, but then we'd need to gate the logic with something like:
> 
> 	static_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_APERFMPERF) &&
> 	(static_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_VMX) || static_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_SVM)
> 
> > Generally speaking, it shifts the mperf values by a number of positions
> > depending on the CPU model, but that is 1 except for KNL.
> > 
> > See get_target_pstate().
> 
> I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that's the same KNL hack as
> TurboStat has.
> 
> Is that really the only known case?

I'm not aware of any other at least as far as Intel chips go.