| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <d5cb81b67973cd950078b50b583b6aded66d5ec9.camel@linux.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2020 11:02:01 -0700
From: srinivas pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com>
To: Doug Smythies <dsmythies@...us.net>
Cc: linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
rjw@...ysocki.net, viresh.kumar@...aro.org, lenb@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] cpufreq: intel_pstate: Allow raw energy
performance preference value
Hi Doug,
On Wed, 2020-06-24 at 08:37 -0700, Doug Smythies wrote:
> Hi Srinivas,
>
> I have immediate need for this. I have been using a tool
> I wrote myself for this which I can now retire.
> (it wasn't very good anyway).
> Yours remembers for each governor, and is way better.
> Thanks.
>
I will incorporate your changes and re-post.
Thanks,
Srinivas
> On 2020.06.23 11:27 Srinivas Pandruvada wrote:
>
> > Currently using attribute "energy_performance_preference", user
> > space can
> > write one of the four per-defined preference string. These
> > preference
> > strings gets mapped to a hard-coded Energy-Performance Preference
> > (EPP) or
> > Energy-Performance Bias (EPB) knob.
> >
> > These four values supposed to cover broad spectrum of use cases,
> > but they
> > are not uniformly distributed in the range.
>
> Suggest:
>
> These four values are supposed to cover broad spectrum of use cases,
> but
> are not uniformly distributed in the range.
>
> > There are number of cases,
> > where this is not enough. For example:
> >
> > Suppose user wants more performance when connected to AC. Instead
> > of using
> > default "balance performance", the "performance" setting can be
> > used. This
> > changes EPP value from 0x80 to 0x00. But setting EPP to 0, results
> > in
> > electrical and thermal issues on some platforms.
> > This results in CPU to do
> > aggressive throttling, which causes drop in performance.
>
> Suggest:
>
> This results in aggressive throttling, which causes a drop in
> performance.
>
> And:
>
> Tough.
> I consider "performance mode" as sacrosanct, and have always
> expected these to behave identically and at max CPU freq:
>
> intel_pstate no-hwp / performance
> intel_cpufreq no-hwp / performance (a.k.a. passive)
> acpi_cpufreq / performance
> intel_pstate hwp / performance
> intel_cpufreq hwp / performance (in future)
>
> as was always the case on my i7-2600K (no hwp) based computer
> and is not the case on my i5-9600K (hwp capable) computer.
> > But some value
> > between 0x80 and 0x00 results in better performance. But that value
> > can't
> > be fixed as the power curve is not linear. In some cases just
> > changing EPP
> > from 0x80 to 0x75 is enough to get significant performance gain.
> >
> > Similarly on battery EPP 0x80 can be very aggressive in power
> > consumption.
> > But picking up the next choice "balance power" results in too much
> > loss
> > of performance, which cause bad user experience in use case like
> > "Google
> > Hangout". It was observed that some value between these two EPP is
> > optimal.
> >
> > This change allows fine grain EPP tuning for platform like
> > Chromebooks.
> > Here based on the product and use cases, different EPP values can
> > be set.
> > This change is similar to the change done for:
> > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu*/power/energy_perf_bias
> > where user has choice to write a predefined string or raw value.
> >
> > The change itself is trivial. When user preference doesn't match
> > predefined string preferences and value is an unsigned integer and
> > in
> > range, use that value for EPP. When the EPP feature is not prsent
> ^^^^^^
> s/prsent/present
>
> > writing raw value is not supported.
> >
> > Suggested-by: Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>
> > Signed-off-by: Srinivas Pandruvada <
> > srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com>
> > ---
> > Documentation/admin-guide/pm/intel_pstate.rst | 6 ++-
> > drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c | 50
> > +++++++++++++++----
> > 2 files changed, 45 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/Documentation/admin-guide/pm/intel_pstate.rst
> > b/Documentation/admin-
> > guide/pm/intel_pstate.rst
> > index 939bfdc53f4f..5e209926e0ed 100644
> > --- a/Documentation/admin-guide/pm/intel_pstate.rst
> > +++ b/Documentation/admin-guide/pm/intel_pstate.rst
> > @@ -561,7 +561,11 @@ somewhere between the two extremes:
> > Strings written to the ``energy_performance_preference`` attribute
> > are
> > internally translated to integer values written to the processor's
> > Energy-Performance Preference (EPP) knob (if supported) or its
> > -Energy-Performance Bias (EPB) knob.
> > +Energy-Performance Bias (EPB) knob. It is also possible to write a
> > positive
> > +integer value between 0 to 255, if the EPP feature is present. If
> > the EPP
> > +feature is not present, writing integer value to this attribute is
> > not
> > +supported. In this case, user can use
> > + "/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu*/power/energy_perf_bias" interface.
> >
> > [Note that tasks may by migrated from one CPU to another by the
> > scheduler's
> > load-balancing algorithm and if different energy vs performance
> > hints are
> > diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c
> > b/drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c
> > index 1cf6d06f2314..d8f195c7a428 100644
> > --- a/drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c
> > +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c
> > @@ -602,11 +602,12 @@ static const unsigned int epp_values[] = {
> > HWP_EPP_POWERSAVE
> > };
> >
> > -static int intel_pstate_get_energy_pref_index(struct cpudata
> > *cpu_data)
> > +static int intel_pstate_get_energy_pref_index(struct cpudata
> > *cpu_data, int *raw_epp)
> > {
> > s16 epp;
> > int index = -EINVAL;
> >
> > + *raw_epp = 0;
> > epp = intel_pstate_get_epp(cpu_data, 0);
> > if (epp < 0)
> > return epp;
> > @@ -614,12 +615,14 @@ static int
> > intel_pstate_get_energy_pref_index(struct cpudata *cpu_data)
> > if (boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_HWP_EPP)) {
> > if (epp == HWP_EPP_PERFORMANCE)
> > return 1;
> > - if (epp <= HWP_EPP_BALANCE_PERFORMANCE)
> > + if (epp == HWP_EPP_BALANCE_PERFORMANCE)
> > return 2;
> > - if (epp <= HWP_EPP_BALANCE_POWERSAVE)
> > + if (epp == HWP_EPP_BALANCE_POWERSAVE)
> > return 3;
> > - else
> > + if (epp == HWP_EPP_POWERSAVE)
> > return 4;
> > + *raw_epp = epp;
> > + return 0;
> > } else if (boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_EPB)) {
> > /*
> > * Range:
> > @@ -638,7 +641,8 @@ static int
> > intel_pstate_get_energy_pref_index(struct cpudata *cpu_data)
> > }
> >
> > static int intel_pstate_set_energy_pref_index(struct cpudata
> > *cpu_data,
> > - int pref_index)
> > + int pref_index, bool
> > use_raw,
> > + u32 raw_epp)
> > {
> > int epp = -EINVAL;
> > int ret;
> > @@ -657,6 +661,16 @@ static int
> > intel_pstate_set_energy_pref_index(struct cpudata *cpu_data,
> >
> > value &= ~GENMASK_ULL(31, 24);
> >
> > + if (use_raw) {
> > + if (raw_epp > 255) {
> > + ret = -EINVAL;
> > + goto return_pref;
> > + }
> > + value |= (u64)raw_epp << 24;
> > + ret = wrmsrl_on_cpu(cpu_data->cpu,
> > MSR_HWP_REQUEST, value);
> > + goto return_pref;
> > + }
> > +
> > if (epp == -EINVAL)
> > epp = epp_values[pref_index - 1];
> >
> > @@ -694,6 +708,8 @@ static ssize_t
> > store_energy_performance_preference(
> > {
> > struct cpudata *cpu_data = all_cpu_data[policy->cpu];
> > char str_preference[21];
> > + bool raw = false;
> > + u32 epp;
> > int ret;
> >
> > ret = sscanf(buf, "%20s", str_preference);
> > @@ -701,10 +717,21 @@ static ssize_t
> > store_energy_performance_preference(
> > return -EINVAL;
> >
> > ret = match_string(energy_perf_strings, -1, str_preference);
> > - if (ret < 0)
> > + if (ret < 0) {
> > + if (!boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_HWP_EPP))
> > + return ret;
> > +
> > + ret = kstrtouint(buf, 10, &epp);
> > + if (ret)
> > + return ret;
> > +
> > + raw = true;
> > + }
> > +
> > + ret = intel_pstate_set_energy_pref_index(cpu_data, ret, raw,
> > epp);
> > + if (ret)
> > return ret;
> >
> > - intel_pstate_set_energy_pref_index(cpu_data, ret);
> > return count;
> > }
> >
> > @@ -712,13 +739,16 @@ static ssize_t
> > show_energy_performance_preference(
> > struct cpufreq_policy *policy, char
> > *buf)
> > {
> > struct cpudata *cpu_data = all_cpu_data[policy->cpu];
> > - int preference;
> > + int preference, raw_epp;
> >
> > - preference = intel_pstate_get_energy_pref_index(cpu_data);
> > + preference = intel_pstate_get_energy_pref_index(cpu_data,
> > &raw_epp);
> > if (preference < 0)
> > return preference;
> >
> > - return sprintf(buf, "%s\n", energy_perf_strings[preference]);
> > + if (raw_epp)
> > + return sprintf(buf, "%d\n", raw_epp);
> > + else
> > + return sprintf(buf, "%s\n",
> > energy_perf_strings[preference]);
> > }
> >
> > cpufreq_freq_attr_rw(energy_performance_preference);
> > --
> > 2.25.4
Powered by blists - more mailing lists