| 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: <cbbc3156-507c-9b88-06b9-c1e7bda50c32@arm.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2022 13:46:45 -0500
From: Jeremy Linton <jeremy.linton@....com>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
Cc: ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.or>,
Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
Robert Moore <robert.moore@...el.com>,
Punit Agrawal <punit.agrawal@...edance.com>,
Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@....com>,
Ionela Voinescu <ionela.voinescu@....com>,
Pierre Gondois <pierre.gondois@....com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"open list:ACPI COMPONENT ARCHITECTURE (ACPICA)" <devel@...ica.org>,
Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] ACPI: CPPC: Disable FIE if registers in PCC
regions
Hi,
On 8/23/22 12:10, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 18, 2022 at 11:24 PM Jeremy Linton <jeremy.linton@....com> wrote:
>>
>> PCC regions utilize a mailbox to set/retrieve register values used by
>> the CPPC code. This is fine as long as the operations are
>> infrequent. With the FIE code enabled though the overhead can range
>> from 2-11% of system CPU overhead (ex: as measured by top) on Arm
>> based machines.
>>
>> So, before enabling FIE assure none of the registers used by
>> cppc_get_perf_ctrs() are in the PCC region. Furthermore lets also
>> enable a module parameter which can also disable it at boot or module
>> reload.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Jeremy Linton <jeremy.linton@....com>
>> ---
>> drivers/acpi/cppc_acpi.c | 41 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c | 31 +++++++++++++++++++++----
>> include/acpi/cppc_acpi.h | 5 +++++
>> 3 files changed, 73 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/cppc_acpi.c b/drivers/acpi/cppc_acpi.c
>> index 1e15a9f25ae9..c840bf606b30 100644
>> --- a/drivers/acpi/cppc_acpi.c
>> +++ b/drivers/acpi/cppc_acpi.c
>> @@ -1240,6 +1240,47 @@ int cppc_get_perf_caps(int cpunum, struct cppc_perf_caps *perf_caps)
>> }
>> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(cppc_get_perf_caps);
>>
>> +/**
>> + * cppc_perf_ctrs_in_pcc - Check if any perf counters are in a PCC region.
>> + *
>> + * CPPC has flexibility about how counters describing CPU perf are delivered.
>
> "CPU performance counters are accessed"
Sure,
>
>
>> + * One of the choices is PCC regions, which can have a high access latency. This
>> + * routine allows callers of cppc_get_perf_ctrs() to know this ahead of time.
>> + *
>> + * Return: true if any of the counters are in PCC regions, false otherwise
>> + */
>> +bool cppc_perf_ctrs_in_pcc(void)
>> +{
>> + int cpu;
>> +
>> + for_each_present_cpu(cpu) {
>> + struct cpc_register_resource *ref_perf_reg;
>> + struct cpc_desc *cpc_desc;
>> +
>> + cpc_desc = per_cpu(cpc_desc_ptr, cpu);
>> +
>> + if (CPC_IN_PCC(&cpc_desc->cpc_regs[DELIVERED_CTR]) ||
>> + CPC_IN_PCC(&cpc_desc->cpc_regs[REFERENCE_CTR]) ||
>> + CPC_IN_PCC(&cpc_desc->cpc_regs[CTR_WRAP_TIME]))
>> + return true;
>> +
>> +
>> + ref_perf_reg = &cpc_desc->cpc_regs[REFERENCE_PERF];
>> +
>> + /*
>> + * If reference perf register is not supported then we should
>> + * use the nominal perf value
>> + */
>> + if (!CPC_SUPPORTED(ref_perf_reg))
>> + ref_perf_reg = &cpc_desc->cpc_regs[NOMINAL_PERF];
>> +
>> + if (CPC_IN_PCC(ref_perf_reg))
>> + return true;
>> + }
>> + return false;
>> +}
>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(cppc_perf_ctrs_in_pcc);
>> +
>> /**
>> * cppc_get_perf_ctrs - Read a CPU's performance feedback counters.
>> * @cpunum: CPU from which to read counters.
>> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c
>> index 24eaf0ec344d..32fcb0bf74a4 100644
>> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c
>> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c
>> @@ -63,7 +63,15 @@ static struct cppc_workaround_oem_info wa_info[] = {
>>
>> static struct cpufreq_driver cppc_cpufreq_driver;
>>
>> +static enum {
>> + FIE_UNSET = -1,
>> + FIE_ENABLED,
>> + FIE_DISABLED
>> +} fie_disabled = FIE_UNSET;
>> +
>> #ifdef CONFIG_ACPI_CPPC_CPUFREQ_FIE
>> +module_param(fie_disabled, int, 0444);
>> +MODULE_PARM_DESC(fie_disabled, "Disable Frequency Invariance Engine (FIE)");
>>
>> /* Frequency invariance support */
>> struct cppc_freq_invariance {
>> @@ -158,7 +166,7 @@ static void cppc_cpufreq_cpu_fie_init(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
>> struct cppc_freq_invariance *cppc_fi;
>> int cpu, ret;
>>
>> - if (cppc_cpufreq_driver.get == hisi_cppc_cpufreq_get_rate)
>> + if (fie_disabled)
>> return;
>>
>> for_each_cpu(cpu, policy->cpus) {
>> @@ -199,7 +207,7 @@ static void cppc_cpufreq_cpu_fie_exit(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
>> struct cppc_freq_invariance *cppc_fi;
>> int cpu;
>>
>> - if (cppc_cpufreq_driver.get == hisi_cppc_cpufreq_get_rate)
>> + if (fie_disabled)
>> return;
>>
>> /* policy->cpus will be empty here, use related_cpus instead */
>> @@ -229,7 +237,21 @@ static void __init cppc_freq_invariance_init(void)
>> };
>> int ret;
>>
>> - if (cppc_cpufreq_driver.get == hisi_cppc_cpufreq_get_rate)
>> + switch (fie_disabled) {
>> + /* honor user request */
>> + case FIE_DISABLED:
>> + case FIE_ENABLED:
>> + break;
>> + case FIE_UNSET:
>> + default:
>
> Would be more straightforward to do
>
> if (fie_disabled == FIE_UNSET) {
>
> here.
Right, but then it wouldn't catch the other billion+ values that are the
result of not being able to export a limit (AFAIK) on the module
parameter. I could use an if:
if !((fie_disabled == FIE_DISABLE) || (fie_disabled == FIE_ENABLED)) {
}
if that is preferable. I thought the case with the explict default:
though made it clearer that it was treating all those other values as unset.
>
>> + fie_disabled = FIE_ENABLED;
>> + if (cppc_perf_ctrs_in_pcc()) {
>> + pr_info("FIE not enabled on systems with registers in PCC\n");
>> + fie_disabled = FIE_DISABLED;
>> + }
>> + break;
>> + }
>> + if (fie_disabled)
>> return;
>>
>> kworker_fie = kthread_create_worker(0, "cppc_fie");
>> @@ -247,7 +269,7 @@ static void __init cppc_freq_invariance_init(void)
>>
>> static void cppc_freq_invariance_exit(void)
>> {
>> - if (cppc_cpufreq_driver.get == hisi_cppc_cpufreq_get_rate)
>> + if (fie_disabled)
>> return;
>>
>> kthread_destroy_worker(kworker_fie);
>> @@ -936,6 +958,7 @@ static void cppc_check_hisi_workaround(void)
>> wa_info[i].oem_revision == tbl->oem_revision) {
>> /* Overwrite the get() callback */
>> cppc_cpufreq_driver.get = hisi_cppc_cpufreq_get_rate;
>> + fie_disabled = FIE_DISABLED;
>> break;
>> }
>> }
>> diff --git a/include/acpi/cppc_acpi.h b/include/acpi/cppc_acpi.h
>> index f73d357ecdf5..c5614444031f 100644
>> --- a/include/acpi/cppc_acpi.h
>> +++ b/include/acpi/cppc_acpi.h
>> @@ -140,6 +140,7 @@ extern int cppc_get_perf_ctrs(int cpu, struct cppc_perf_fb_ctrs *perf_fb_ctrs);
>> extern int cppc_set_perf(int cpu, struct cppc_perf_ctrls *perf_ctrls);
>> extern int cppc_set_enable(int cpu, bool enable);
>> extern int cppc_get_perf_caps(int cpu, struct cppc_perf_caps *caps);
>> +extern bool cppc_perf_ctrs_in_pcc(void);
>> extern bool acpi_cpc_valid(void);
>> extern bool cppc_allow_fast_switch(void);
>> extern int acpi_get_psd_map(unsigned int cpu, struct cppc_cpudata *cpu_data);
>> @@ -173,6 +174,10 @@ static inline int cppc_get_perf_caps(int cpu, struct cppc_perf_caps *caps)
>> {
>> return -ENOTSUPP;
>> }
>> +static inline bool cppc_perf_ctrs_in_pcc(void)
>> +{
>> + return false;
>> +}
>> static inline bool acpi_cpc_valid(void)
>> {
>> return false;
>> --
>
> Apart from the above it looks fine to me, but I would like to get an
> ACK from Viresh on the second patch.
>
> Thanks!
Thanks for looking at this.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists