linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 3/3] arm64: implement CPPC FFH support using AMUs

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: <20201113200351.GB20519@gaia>
Date:   Fri, 13 Nov 2020 20:03:51 +0000
From:   Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
To:     Ionela Voinescu <ionela.voinescu@....com>
Cc:     Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>, mark.rutland@....com,
        will@...nel.org, morten.rasmussen@....com,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 3/3] arm64: implement CPPC FFH support using AMUs

On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 04:37:12PM +0000, Ionela Voinescu wrote:
> On Friday 13 Nov 2020 at 14:16:58 (+0000), Sudeep Holla wrote:
> [..]
> > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/topology.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/topology.c
> > > index b8cb16e3a2cc..7c9b6a0ecd6a 100644
> > > --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/topology.c
> > > +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/topology.c
> > > @@ -147,6 +147,9 @@ void update_freq_counters_refs(void)
> > >
> > >  static inline bool freq_counters_valid(int cpu)
> > >  {
> > > +	if ((cpu >= nr_cpu_ids) || !cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, cpu_present_mask))
> > > +		return false;
> > > +
> > >  	if (!cpu_has_amu_feat(cpu)) {
> > >  		pr_debug("CPU%d: counters are not supported.\n", cpu);
> > >  		return false;
> > > @@ -323,3 +326,64 @@ void topology_scale_freq_tick(void)
> > >  	this_cpu_write(arch_core_cycles_prev, core_cnt);
> > >  	this_cpu_write(arch_const_cycles_prev, const_cnt);
> > >  }
> > > +
> > > +#ifdef CONFIG_ACPI_CPPC_LIB
> > > +#include <acpi/cppc_acpi.h>
> > 
> > Not sure what arm64 maintainers prefer, but this code has nothing to do
> > with topolopy strictly speaking. I wonder if we can put it in separate
> 
> Yes, you are correct. I am/was wondering the same for all the
> counters/AMU related functions, but given they were only used for
> topology_scale_freq_tick() *until now*, it was okay to keep them in
> topology.c.
> 
> But I might soon have at least one additional (to FIE and FFH) small
> usecase for them in the implementation of arch_freq_get_on_cpu(), so all
> these functions might be better off in a separate file as well.
> 
> Side note: I don't think frequency invariance is strictly speaking
> related to topology either. Nether are other functions in the
> arch_topology driver. It's likely we got used to placing all
> arch function implementation in either the arch_topology driver or the
> <arch>/kernel/topology.c.

Yeah, it looks like these topology files became a dumping ground for
whatever power related ;).

I'm ok with these patches as they are for now but it would be good to do
some refactoring on top and maybe move them to an amu.c file (it's not
urgent, it can be for 5.12 or when you plan to add more stuff next). I
don't have an opinion for arch_topology.c, so far it doesn't seem to
have any AMU stuff in it.

-- 
Catalin