| 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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2022 15:22:04 +0200
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
To: Jeremy Linton <jeremy.linton@....com>
Cc: ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
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
On Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 8:46 PM Jeremy Linton <jeremy.linton@....com> wrote:
>
> 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:
Hmm.
I've missed the module_param() part.
It doesn't even make sense to use enum for the variable type in that case.
Also you can always do
if (fie_disabled < 0) {
...
}
> 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