linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 3/4] cpufreq: Add Active Stats calls tracking frequency changes

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: <CAJZ5v0iVwpn0_wCZOh43DOeR2mudWYJyseMdtMsZGR-sjQ1X9Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 22 Jun 2021 14:28:11 +0200
From:   "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
To:     Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@....com>
Cc:     Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
        Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
        Amit Kucheria <amitk@...nel.org>,
        "Zhang, Rui" <rui.zhang@...el.com>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
        Chris Redpath <Chris.Redpath@....com>, Beata.Michalska@....com,
        Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        Amit Kachhap <amit.kachhap@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 3/4] cpufreq: Add Active Stats calls tracking
 frequency changes

On Tue, Jun 22, 2021 at 9:59 AM Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@....com> wrote:
>
> The Active Stats framework tracks and accounts the activity of the CPU
> for each performance level. It accounts the real residency, when the CPU
> was not idle, at a given performance level. This patch adds needed calls
> which provide the CPU frequency transition events to the Active Stats
> framework.
>
> Signed-off-by: Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@....com>
> ---
>  drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 5 +++++
>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> index 802abc925b2a..d79cb9310572 100644
> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> @@ -14,6 +14,7 @@
>
>  #define pr_fmt(fmt) KBUILD_MODNAME ": " fmt
>
> +#include <linux/active_stats.h>
>  #include <linux/cpu.h>
>  #include <linux/cpufreq.h>
>  #include <linux/cpu_cooling.h>
> @@ -387,6 +388,8 @@ static void cpufreq_notify_transition(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
>
>                 cpufreq_stats_record_transition(policy, freqs->new);
>                 policy->cur = freqs->new;
> +
> +               active_stats_cpu_freq_change(policy->cpu, freqs->new);
>         }
>  }
>
> @@ -2085,6 +2088,8 @@ unsigned int cpufreq_driver_fast_switch(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
>                             policy->cpuinfo.max_freq);
>         cpufreq_stats_record_transition(policy, freq);
>
> +       active_stats_cpu_freq_fast_change(policy->cpu, freq);
> +

This is quite a bit of overhead and so why is it needed in addition to
the code below?

And pretty much the same goes for the idle loop change.  There is
quite a bit of instrumentation in that code already and it avoids
adding new locking for a reason.  Why is it a good idea to add more
locking to that code?

>         if (trace_cpu_frequency_enabled()) {
>                 for_each_cpu(cpu, policy->cpus)
>                         trace_cpu_frequency(freq, cpu);
> --