linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: schedutil: Don't consider freq reduction to busy CPU if need_freq

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAJZ5v0jouxkj5uKrkNSBZUxXkSNjGY5NAo3zAqSaO9rJBGcqCQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 22 Feb 2021 15:30:34 +0100
From:   "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
To:     Yue Hu <zbestahu@....com>
Cc:     Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
        Yue Hu <zbestahu@...il.com>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Benjamin Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>,
        Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Yue Hu <huyue2@...ong.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: schedutil: Don't consider freq reduction to busy
 CPU if need_freq_update is set

On Mon, Feb 22, 2021 at 2:57 PM Yue Hu <zbestahu@....com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 22 Feb 2021 11:00:14 +0530
> Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org> wrote:
>
> > On 19-02-21, 19:45, Yue Hu wrote:
> > > We will set next_f to next_freq(previous freq) if next_f is
> > > reduced for busy CPU. Then the next sugov_update_next_freq() will check
> > > if next_freq matches next_f if need_freq_update is not set.
> > > Obviously, we will do nothing for the case. And The related check to
> > > fast_switch_enabled and raw_spin_{lock,unlock} operations are
> > > unnecessary.
> >
> > Right, but we will still need sugov_update_next_freq() to have the
> > same implementation regardless and so I am not sure if we should add
>
> Yes, sugov_update_next_freq() should be keeping current logic for corner case.
>
> > this change:
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c b/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c
> > index 41e498b0008a..7289e1adab73 100644
> > --- a/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c
> > +++ b/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c
> > @@ -362,6 +362,9 @@ static void sugov_update_single_freq(struct update_util_data *hook, u64 time,
> >          * recently, as the reduction is likely to be premature then.
> >          */
> >         if (sugov_cpu_is_busy(sg_cpu) && next_f < sg_policy->next_freq) {
> > +               if (!sg_policy->need_freq_update)
>
> The initial purpose about code of `next_f = sg_policy->next_freq` here (for special CPU busy
> case) should be skipping the freq update.
>
> Since commit 600f5badb78c ("cpufreq: schedutil: Don't skip freq update when limits change"),
> we add the check to busy CPU for not skipping the update, we need to update the freq using
> computed one because limits change.
>
> After commit 23a881852f3e ("cpufreq: schedutil: Don't skip freq update if need_freq_update
> is set"), we removed the need_freq_update check(no issue of commit 600f5badb78c anymore?)
> and introduce to always do an update in sugov_update_next_freq() if need_freq_update is set
> even though current freq == sg_policy->next_freq because of corner case issue. But that is
> conflict with original purpose of the freq skip code (next_f = sg_policy->next_freq) of
> busy CPU.

That's because we realized that it was not always a good idea to skip
the update even if next_f == sg_policy->next_freq.

That's why CPUFREQ_NEED_UPDATE_LIMITS has been introduced and the
current flow is a result of subsequent code rearrangements.