linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86, smpboot: Disable frequency invariance when it's unsupported

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <bf43772d-48e5-01d4-dd03-330110e487fa@linux.intel.com>
Date:   Thu, 16 Apr 2020 15:01:49 +0800
From:   Like Xu <like.xu@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Giovanni Gherdovich <ggherdovich@...e.cz>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Doug Smythies <dsmythies@...us.net>,
        "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86, smpboot: Disable frequency invariance when it's
 unsupported

On 2020/4/16 14:08, Giovanni Gherdovich wrote:
> On Thu, 2020-04-16 at 10:12 +0800, Like Xu wrote:
>> On the Intel SNR processors such as "Intel Atom(R) C6562", the
>> turbo_freq for 4C turbo may be zero which causes a divide by zero
>> exception and blocks the boot process when arch_scale_freq_tick().
>>
>> When one of the preset base_freq or turbo_freq is meaningless,
>> we may disable frequency invariance.
>>
>> Fixes: 1567c3e3467c ("x86, sched: Add support for frequency invariance")
>> Signed-off-by: Like Xu <like.xu@...ux.intel.com>
>> ---
>>   arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c | 3 +++
>>   1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c b/arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c
>> index fe3ab9632f3b..741367ce4d14 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c
>> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c
>> @@ -1958,6 +1958,9 @@ static bool core_set_max_freq_ratio(u64 *base_freq, u64 *turbo_freq)
>>   	*base_freq = (*base_freq >> 8) & 0xFF;      /* max P state */
>>   	*turbo_freq = (*turbo_freq >> 24) & 0xFF;   /* 4C turbo    */
>>   
>> +	if (*turbo_freq == 0 || *base_freq == 0)
>> +		return false;
>> +
>>   	return true;
>>   }
>>
> 
> Hello Like Xu,
> 
> thanks for reporting this and for the patch. My preferred solution for when
> the 4 cores turbo freq is detected as zero would be to look for the 1 core turbo
> frequency, as we're likely on a machine with less than 4 cores. Is that the
> case on your Atom C6562? I couldn't find it on ark.intel.com.

The Atom C6562 is "24 cores" based on 
https://www.intel.com/content/dam/www/public/us/en/documents/product-briefs/atom-p5900-product-brief.pdf

#define MSR_PLATFORM_INFO		0x000000ce

the value for this msr is 80820f9801600

#define MSR_TURBO_RATIO_LIMIT		0x000001ad

the value for this msr is 16

I know you didn't test your feature on this platform,
but combinations of other various values are also possible
(unless it's made clear in the specification).

> 
> As per why I'd like to go with 1 core turbo instead of bailing out of freq
> invariance entirely, I've left a comment in the openSUSE bugzilla with some
> details: https://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1166664#c35

> The relevant part is:
> 
> :: The fix in this case is to take the 1 core turbo as normalizing factor. The
> :: other choice would be to use the base frequency (no turbo at all), but using
> :: base freq for normalization means that the ratio becomes current_freq / base_freq
> :: which is an over-estimation, which leads the frequency governor to think the
> :: CPU is more loaded than it really is and raise the frequency a bit too
> :: aggressively. This is tolerable in performance-oriented servers but
> :: inappropriate on small machines with 2 cores."
> 
> Regarding base_freq being reported as zero, you're right, that can happen too
> and we've seen it in hypervisors.
> 
> I've just sent fixes for these two problems here:
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20200416054745.740-1-ggherdovich@suse.cz/

Hence the "less than 4 cores" comment is weird for C6562
but the use of "1C turbo" looks good to me.

Thanks,
Like Xu

> 
> 
> Thanks,
> Giovanni Gherdovich
>