linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 2/4] cpufreq: acpi-cpufreq: Add processor to the ignore PSD override list

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]

Date:   Mon, 14 Dec 2020 13:40:23 +0100
From:   Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To:     Punit Agrawal <punitagrawal@...il.com>
Cc:     Wei Huang <whuang2@....com>, rjw@...ysocki.net, wei.huang2@....com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
        x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/4] cpufreq: acpi-cpufreq: Add processor to the
 ignore PSD override list

On Sat, Dec 12, 2020 at 08:36:48AM +0900, Punit Agrawal wrote:
> To me it suggests, that there are likely more systems from the family
> that show the characteristic described below.

Until we find a *single* system with a broken BIOS which has those
objects kaputt and then this heuristic would need an exception.

VS the clear statement from AMD that from zen3 onwards, all BIOS will be
tested. I hope they boot Linux at least before they ship.

> In all these systems, the override causes this topology information to
> be ignored - treating each core to be a separate domain. The proposed
> patch removes the override so that _PSD is taken into account.

You're still not answering my question: what does the coupling of the
SMT threads bring on those systems? Power savings? Perf improvement?
Anything palpable or measurable?

Thx.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette