linux-kernel - Re: problem in changing from active to passive mode

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: <CAJZ5v0ihVdrZ1ogEc34+QgZUJW5-=RzP34-U1_91VTcLhbc4Nw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 28 Oct 2021 19:29:12 +0200
From:   "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
To:     Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...ia.fr>
Cc:     Doug Smythies <dsmythies@...us.net>,
        Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com>,
        Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
        Linux PM list <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: problem in changing from active to passive mode

On Thu, Oct 28, 2021 at 7:10 PM Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...ia.fr> wrote:
>
> > Now, for your graph 3, are you saying this pseudo
> > code of the process is repeatable?:
> >
> > Power up the system, booting kernel 5.9
> > switch to passive/schedutil.
> > wait X minutes for system to settle
> > do benchmark, result ~13 seconds
> > re-boot to kernel 5.15-RC
> > switch to passive/schedutil.
> > wait X minutes for system to settle
> > do benchmark, result ~40 seconds
> > re-boot to kernel 5.9
> > switch to passive/schedutil.
> > wait X minutes for system to settle
> > do benchmark, result ~28 seconds
>
> In the first boot of 5.9, the des (desired?) field of the HWP_REQUEST
> register is 0 and in the second boot (after booting 5.15 and entering
> passive mode) it is 10.  I don't know though if this is a bug or a
> feature...

It looks like a bug.

I think that the desired value is not cleared on driver exit which
should happen.  Let me see if I can do a quick patch for that.