| 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: <CAJZ5v0gfAZrW4jmEEb+h2UpYVoVMLd2P4f_P_R-_+uRytSJ6Pg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2020 16:24:23 +0100
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
To: Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: intel_pstate: Use the latest guaranteed freq
during verify
On Thu, Dec 17, 2020 at 4:21 PM Srinivas Pandruvada
<srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2020-12-17 at 16:12 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Thursday, December 17, 2020 3:23:44 PM CET Srinivas Pandruvada
> > wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2020-12-17 at 06:19 -0800, Srinivas Pandruvada wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 2020-12-17 at 14:58 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, Dec 17, 2020 at 11:44 AM Srinivas Pandruvada
> > > > > <srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This change tries to address an issue, when BIOS disabled
> > > > > > turbo
> > > > > > but HWP_CAP guaranteed is changed later and user space wants
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > take
> > > > > > advantage of this increased guaranteed performance.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The HWP_CAP.GUARANTEED value is not a static value. It can be
> > > > > > changed
> > > > > > by some out of band agent or during Intel Speed Select
> > > > > > performance
> > > > > > level change. The HWP_CAP.MAX still shows max possible
> > > > > > performance
> > > > > > when
> > > > > > BIOS disabled turbo. So guaranteed can still change as long
> > > > > > as
> > > > > > this
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > same or below HWP_CAP.MAX.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > When guaranteed is changed, the sysfs base_frequency
> > > > > > attributes
> > > > > > shows
> > > > > > the latest guaranteed frequency. This attribute can be used
> > > > > > by
> > > > > > user
> > > > > > space software to update scaling min/max frequency.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Currently the setpolicy callback already uses the latest
> > > > > > HWP_CAP
> > > > > > values when setting HWP_REQ. But the verify callback will
> > > > > > still
> > > > > > restrict
> > > > > > the user settings to the to old guaranteed value. So if the
> > > > > > guaranteed
> > > > > > is increased, user space can't take advantage of it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > To solve this similar to setpolicy callback, read the latest
> > > > > > HWP_CAP
> > > > > > values and use it to restrict the maximum setting. This is
> > > > > > done
> > > > > > by
> > > > > > calling intel_pstate_get_hwp_max(), which already accounts
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > user
> > > > > > and BIOS turbo disable to get the current max performance.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This issue is side effect of fixing the issue of scaling
> > > > > > frequency
> > > > > > limits by the
> > > > > > 'commit eacc9c5a927e ("cpufreq: intel_pstate:
> > > > > > Fix intel_pstate_get_hwp_max() for turbo disabled")'
> > > > > > The fix resulted in correct setting of reduced scaling
> > > > > > frequencies,
> > > > > > but this resulted in capping HWP.REQ to HWP_CAP.GUARANTEED in
> > > > > > this
> > > > > > case.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Cc: 5.8+ <stable@...r.kernel.org> # 5.8+
> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Srinivas Pandruvada <
> > > > > > srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com>
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > > drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c | 6 ++++++
> > > > > > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c
> > > > > > b/drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c
> > > > > > index 2a4db856222f..7081d1edb22b 100644
> > > > > > --- a/drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c
> > > > > > +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c
> > > > > > @@ -2199,6 +2199,12 @@ static void
> > > > > > intel_pstate_clear_update_util_hook(unsigned int cpu)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > static int intel_pstate_get_max_freq(struct cpudata *cpu)
> > > > > > {
> > > > > > + if (hwp_active) {
> > > > > > + int turbo_max, max_state;
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > + intel_pstate_get_hwp_max(cpu->cpu,
> > > > > > &turbo_max,
> > > > > > &max_state);
> > > > >
> > > > > This would cause intel_pstate_get_hwp_max() to be called twice
> > > > > in
> > > > > intel_pstate_update_perf_limits() which is not perfect.
> > > >
> > > > We can optimize by using cached value.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c
> > > > b/drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c
> > > > index 7081d1edb22b..d345c9ef240c 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c
> > > > @@ -2223,7 +2223,11 @@ static void
> > > > intel_pstate_update_perf_limits(struct cpudata *cpu,
> > > > * rather than pure ratios.
> > > > */
> > > > if (hwp_active) {
> > > > - intel_pstate_get_hwp_max(cpu->cpu, &turbo_max,
> > > > &max_state);
> > > > + if (global.no_turbo || global.turbo_disabled)
> > > > + max_state = HWP_GUARANTEED_PERF(cpu-
> > > > > hwp_cap_cached);
> > > > + else
> > > > + max_state = HWP_HIGHEST_PERF(cpu-
> > > > > hwp_cap_cached);
> > > Can use ternary operator instead of if..else. to further simplify.
> > >
> > > > + turbo_max = HWP_HIGHEST_PERF(cpu->hwp_cached);
> > > > } else {
> > > > max_state = global.no_turbo ||
> > > > global.turbo_disabled
> > > > ?
> > > > cpu->pstate.max_pstate : cpu-
> > > > > pstate.turbo_pstate;
> >
> > Well, would something like the patch below work?
> >
> > ---
> > drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c | 16 +++++++++++++---
> > 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >
> > Index: linux-pm/drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c
> > ===================================================================
> > --- linux-pm.orig/drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c
> > +++ linux-pm/drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c
> > @@ -2207,9 +2207,9 @@ static void intel_pstate_update_perf_lim
> > unsigned int policy_min,
> > unsigned int policy_max)
> > {
> > - int max_freq = intel_pstate_get_max_freq(cpu);
> > int32_t max_policy_perf, min_policy_perf;
> > int max_state, turbo_max;
> > + int max_freq;
> >
> > /*
> > * HWP needs some special consideration, because on BDX the
> > @@ -2223,6 +2223,7 @@ static void intel_pstate_update_perf_lim
> > cpu->pstate.max_pstate : cpu-
> > >pstate.turbo_pstate;
> > turbo_max = cpu->pstate.turbo_pstate;
> > }
> > + max_freq = max_state * cpu->pstate.scaling;
> >
> > max_policy_perf = max_state * policy_max / max_freq;
> > if (policy_max == policy_min) {
> > @@ -2325,9 +2326,18 @@ static void intel_pstate_adjust_policy_m
> > static void intel_pstate_verify_cpu_policy(struct cpudata *cpu,
> > struct cpufreq_policy_data
> > *policy)
> > {
> > + int max_freq;
> > +
> > update_turbo_state();
> > - cpufreq_verify_within_limits(policy, policy-
> > >cpuinfo.min_freq,
> > - intel_pstate_get_max_freq(cpu));
> > + if (hwp_active) {
> > + int max_state, turbo_max;
> > +
> > + intel_pstate_get_hwp_max(cpu->cpu, &turbo_max,
> > &max_state);
> > + max_freq = max_state * cpu->pstate.scaling;
> > + } else {
> > + max_freq = intel_pstate_get_max_freq(cpu);
> > + }
> > + cpufreq_verify_within_limits(policy, policy-
> > >cpuinfo.min_freq, max_freq);
> >
> > intel_pstate_adjust_policy_max(cpu, policy);
> > }
> >
> Should work.
> I will test this patch and let you know once I get the system.
Please do, thank you!
Powered by blists - more mailing lists