linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4] x86, sched: Fix the AMD CPPC maximum perf on some specific generations

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:   Thu, 13 May 2021 12:24:20 +0800
From:   Huang Rui <ray.huang@....com>
To:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Alexander Monakov <amonakov@...ras.ru>
Cc:     Alexander Monakov <amonakov@...ras.ru>,
        "linux-pm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Deucher, Alexander" <Alexander.Deucher@....com>,
        Jason Bagavatsingham <jason.bagavatsingham@...il.com>,
        "Pierre-Loup A . Griffais" <pgriffais@...vesoftware.com>,
        "Fontenot, Nathan" <Nathan.Fontenot@....com>,
        "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>,
        "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
        "stable@...r.kernel.org" <stable@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] x86, sched: Fix the AMD CPPC maximum perf on some
 specific generations

On Thu, May 13, 2021 at 06:59:02AM +0800, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> * Alexander Monakov <amonakov@...ras.ru> wrote:
> 
> > On Sun, 25 Apr 2021, Huang Rui wrote:
> > 
> > > Some AMD Ryzen generations has different calculation method on maximum
> > > perf. 255 is not for all asics, some specific generations should use 166
> > > as the maximum perf. Otherwise, it will report incorrect frequency value
> > > like below:
> > 
> > The commit message says '255', but the code:
> > 
> > > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/amd.c
> > > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/amd.c
> > > @@ -1170,3 +1170,19 @@ void set_dr_addr_mask(unsigned long mask, int dr)
> > >  		break;
> > >  	}
> > >  }
> > > +
> > > +u32 amd_get_highest_perf(void)
> > > +{
> > > +	struct cpuinfo_x86 *c = &boot_cpu_data;
> > > +
> > > +	if (c->x86 == 0x17 && ((c->x86_model >= 0x30 && c->x86_model < 0x40) ||
> > > +			       (c->x86_model >= 0x70 && c->x86_model < 0x80)))
> > > +	    return 166;
> > > +
> > > +	if (c->x86 == 0x19 && ((c->x86_model >= 0x20 && c->x86_model < 0x30) ||
> > > +			       (c->x86_model >= 0x40 && c->x86_model < 0x70)))
> > > +	    return 166;
> > > +
> > > +	return 225;
> > > +}
> > 
> > says 225? This is probably a typo? In any case they are out of sync.
> > 
> > Alexander
> 
> Ugh - that's indeed a good question ...
> 

Ah sorry! It's my typo. It should be 255 (confirmed in the ucode).

Alexander, thanks a lot to catch this!

Ingo, would you mind to update it from 225 -> 255 while you apply this
patch or let me know if you want me to send v5?

Thanks,
Ray