| 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: <CAJZ5v0gGXyURiqcspDdLf99dKjoFKDRZ=nc55b9OHXRdat8T_w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2023 10:50:57 +0200
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
To: Xuewen Yan <xuewen.yan94@...il.com>
Cc: Qais Yousef <qyousef@...alina.io>,
Xuewen Yan <xuewen.yan@...soc.com>, rafael@...nel.org,
viresh.kumar@...aro.org, mingo@...hat.com, peterz@...radead.org,
vincent.guittot@...aro.org, dietmar.eggemann@....com,
rostedt@...dmis.org, bsegall@...gle.com, mgorman@...e.de,
bristot@...hat.com, vschneid@...hat.com, guohua.yan@...soc.com,
linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: schedutil: next_freq need update when
cpufreq_limits changed
On Tue, Jul 25, 2023 at 4:21 AM Xuewen Yan <xuewen.yan94@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jul 24, 2023 at 11:53 PM Qais Yousef <qyousef@...alina.io> wrote:
> >
> > On 07/24/23 11:36, Xuewen Yan wrote:
> > > On Sat, Jul 22, 2023 at 7:02 AM Qais Yousef <qyousef@...alina.io> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On 07/19/23 21:05, Xuewen Yan wrote:
> > > > > When cpufreq's policy is single, there is a scenario that will
> > > > > cause sg_policy's next_freq to be unable to update.
> > > > >
> > > > > When the cpu's util is always max, the cpufreq will be max,
> > > > > and then if we change the policy's scaling_max_freq to be a
> > > > > lower freq, indeed, the sg_policy's next_freq need change to
> > > > > be the lower freq, however, because the cpu_is_busy, the next_freq
> > > > > would keep the max_freq.
> > > > >
> > > > > For example:
> > > > > The cpu7 is single cpu:
> > > > >
> > > > > unisoc:/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpufreq/policy7 # while true;do done&
> > > > > [1] 4737
> > > > > unisoc:/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpufreq/policy7 # taskset -p 80 4737
> > > > > pid 4737's current affinity mask: ff
> > > > > pid 4737's new affinity mask: 80
> > > > > unisoc:/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpufreq/policy7 # cat scaling_max_freq
> > > > > 2301000
> > > > > unisoc:/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpufreq/policy7 # cat scaling_cur_freq
> > > > > 2301000
> > > > > unisoc:/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpufreq/policy7 # echo 2171000 > scaling_max_freq
> > > > > unisoc:/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpufreq/policy7 # cat scaling_max_freq
> > > > > 2171000
> > > > >
> > > > > At this time, the sg_policy's next_freq would keep 2301000.
> > > > >
> > > > > To prevent the case happen, add the judgment of the need_freq_update flag.
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Xuewen Yan <xuewen.yan@...soc.com>
> > > > > Co-developed-by: Guohua Yan <guohua.yan@...soc.com>
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Guohua Yan <guohua.yan@...soc.com>
> > > > > ---
> > > > > kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c | 3 ++-
> > > > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c b/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c
> > > > > index 4492608b7d7f..458d359f5991 100644
> > > > > --- a/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c
> > > > > +++ b/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c
> > > > > @@ -350,7 +350,8 @@ static void sugov_update_single_freq(struct update_util_data *hook, u64 time,
> > > > > * Except when the rq is capped by uclamp_max.
> > > > > */
> > > > > if (!uclamp_rq_is_capped(cpu_rq(sg_cpu->cpu)) &&
> > > > > - sugov_cpu_is_busy(sg_cpu) && next_f < sg_policy->next_freq) {
> > > > > + sugov_cpu_is_busy(sg_cpu) && next_f < sg_policy->next_freq &&
> > > > > + !sg_policy->need_freq_update) {
> > > >
> > > > What about sugov_update_single_perf()? It seems to have the same problem, no?
> > >
> > > There is no problem in sugov_update_single_perf, because the next_freq
> > > is updated by drivers, maybe the next_freq is not used when using
> > > sugov_update_single_perf..
> >
> > Ah I see; we just use prev_util but the request will go through and the driver
> > should observe the new limit regardless of what util value we pass to it. Got
> > ya.
> >
> > >
> > > But for the last_freq_update_time, I think there are some problems
> > > when using sugov_update_single_perf:
> > > Now, there is no judgment condition for the update of the
> > > last_freq_update_time. That means the last_freq_update_time is always
> > > updated in sugov_update_single_perf.
> > > And in sugov_should_update_freq: it would judge the
> > > freq_update_delay_ns. As a result, If we use the
> > > sugov_update_single_perf, the cpu frequency would only be periodically
> > > updated according to freq_update_delay_ns.
> > > Maybe we should judge the cpufreq_driver_adjust_perf's return value,
> > > if the freq is not updated, the last_freq_update_time also does not
> > > have to update.
> > >
> > > Just like:
> > > ---
> > > diff --git a/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c b/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c
> > > index 458d359f5991..10f18b054f01 100644
> > > --- a/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c
> > > +++ b/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c
> > > @@ -381,6 +381,7 @@ static void sugov_update_single_perf(struct
> > > update_util_data *hook, u64 time,
> > > struct sugov_cpu *sg_cpu = container_of(hook, struct
> > > sugov_cpu, update_util);
> > > unsigned long prev_util = sg_cpu->util;
> > > unsigned long max_cap;
> > > + bool freq_updated;
> > >
> > > /*
> > > * Fall back to the "frequency" path if frequency invariance is not
> > > @@ -407,10 +408,11 @@ static void sugov_update_single_perf(struct
> > > update_util_data *hook, u64 time,
> > > sugov_cpu_is_busy(sg_cpu) && sg_cpu->util < prev_util)
> > > sg_cpu->util = prev_util;
> > >
> > > - cpufreq_driver_adjust_perf(sg_cpu->cpu, map_util_perf(sg_cpu->bw_dl),
> > > + freq_updated = cpufreq_driver_adjust_perf(sg_cpu->cpu,
> > > map_util_perf(sg_cpu->bw_dl),
> > > map_util_perf(sg_cpu->util), max_cap);
> > >
> > > - sg_cpu->sg_policy->last_freq_update_time = time;
> > > + if (freq_updated)
> > > + sg_cpu->sg_policy->last_freq_update_time = time;
> > > }
> >
> > Sound reasonable in principle, but it could lead to overhead; for example when
> > the system is busy and maxed out, the last_freq_update_time will never be
> > updated and will end up continuously calling to the driver to change frequency
> > without any rate limit AFAICS. Which might not be an acceptable overhead,
> > I don't know. Logically this is wasted cycles preventing the tasks from doing
> > useful work. I think we need to look at such corner cases and treat them
> > appropriately to not call the driver if we go with this approach.
>
> Hi Qais,
>
> I can understand what you mean, but I don't think this is a problem.
> For the driver, the calculation of whether to update the frequency may
> not be the main time-consuming, but the main time-consuming may be the
> frequency conversion time of the hardware. If the hardware does not
> need frequency conversion, the operation of calculating the frequency
> takes a very short time.
> If the operation of calling the driver frequently is unacceptable, can
> prev_util be used?
No, it's better to pass the data to the driver directly and let it
sort that out in this particular case.
> ---
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c b/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c
> index 4492608b7d7f..3febfd032eee 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c
> @@ -379,7 +379,9 @@ static void sugov_update_single_perf(struct
> update_util_data *hook, u64 time,
> {
> struct sugov_cpu *sg_cpu = container_of(hook, struct
> sugov_cpu, update_util);
> unsigned long prev_util = sg_cpu->util;
> + unsigned long prev_bw_dl = sg_cpu->bw_dl;
> unsigned long max_cap;
> + bool freq_updated;
>
> /*
> * Fall back to the "frequency" path if frequency invariance is not
> @@ -406,10 +408,14 @@ static void sugov_update_single_perf(struct
> update_util_data *hook, u64 time,
> sugov_cpu_is_busy(sg_cpu) && sg_cpu->util < prev_util)
> sg_cpu->util = prev_util;
>
> - cpufreq_driver_adjust_perf(sg_cpu->cpu, map_util_perf(sg_cpu->bw_dl),
> + if (prev_util == sg_cpu->util && prev_bw_dl == sg_cpu->bw_dl)
> + return;
> +
> + freq_updated = cpufreq_driver_adjust_perf(sg_cpu->cpu,
> map_util_perf(sg_cpu->bw_dl),
> map_util_perf(sg_cpu->util), max_cap);
>
> - sg_cpu->sg_policy->last_freq_update_time = time;
> + if (freq_updated)
> + sg_cpu->sg_policy->last_freq_update_time = time;
> }
>
> static unsigned int sugov_next_freq_shared(struct sugov_cpu *sg_cpu, u64 time)
>
>
> BR
> ---
> xuewen
> >
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > --
> > Qais Yousef
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > BR
> > > Thanks!
> > >
> > > ---
> > > xuewen
> > > >
> > > > LGTM otherwise.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Cheers
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Qais Yousef
> > > >
> > > > > next_f = sg_policy->next_freq;
> > > > >
> > > > > /* Restore cached freq as next_freq has changed */
> > > > > --
> > > > > 2.25.1
> > > > >
Powered by blists - more mailing lists