linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V5 4/7] cpufreq: Add a notification message that the highest perf has changed

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: <20230908132402.GH19320@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Fri, 8 Sep 2023 15:24:02 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Meng Li <li.meng@....com>
Cc:     "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
        Huang Rui <ray.huang@....com>, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
        linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>,
        linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
        Nathan Fontenot <nathan.fontenot@....com>,
        Deepak Sharma <deepak.sharma@....com>,
        Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@....com>,
        Mario Limonciello <mario.limonciello@....com>,
        Shimmer Huang <shimmer.huang@....com>,
        Perry Yuan <Perry.Yuan@....com>,
        Xiaojian Du <Xiaojian.Du@....com>,
        Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V5 4/7] cpufreq: Add a notification message that the
 highest perf has changed

On Tue, Sep 05, 2023 at 09:51:13AM +0800, Meng Li wrote:
> ACPI 6.5 section 8.4.6.1.1.1 specifies that Notify event 0x85 can be
> emmitted to cause the the OSPM to re-evaluate the highest performance
> register. Add support for this event.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Meng Li <li.meng@....com>
> Link: https://uefi.org/specs/ACPI/6.5/08_Processor_Configuration_and_Control.html?highlight=cppc#cpc-continuous-performance-control
> ---
>  drivers/acpi/processor_driver.c |  6 ++++++
>  drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c       | 13 +++++++++++++
>  include/linux/cpufreq.h         |  5 +++++
>  3 files changed, 24 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/processor_driver.c b/drivers/acpi/processor_driver.c
> index 4bd16b3f0781..29b2fb68a35d 100644
> --- a/drivers/acpi/processor_driver.c
> +++ b/drivers/acpi/processor_driver.c
> @@ -27,6 +27,7 @@
>  #define ACPI_PROCESSOR_NOTIFY_PERFORMANCE 0x80
>  #define ACPI_PROCESSOR_NOTIFY_POWER	0x81
>  #define ACPI_PROCESSOR_NOTIFY_THROTTLING	0x82
> +#define ACPI_PROCESSOR_NOTIFY_HIGEST_PERF_CHANGED	0x85
>  
>  MODULE_AUTHOR("Paul Diefenbaugh");
>  MODULE_DESCRIPTION("ACPI Processor Driver");
> @@ -83,6 +84,11 @@ static void acpi_processor_notify(acpi_handle handle, u32 event, void *data)
>  		acpi_bus_generate_netlink_event(device->pnp.device_class,
>  						  dev_name(&device->dev), event, 0);
>  		break;
> +	case ACPI_PROCESSOR_NOTIFY_HIGEST_PERF_CHANGED:
> +		cpufreq_update_highest_perf(pr->id);
> +		acpi_bus_generate_netlink_event(device->pnp.device_class,
> +						  dev_name(&device->dev), event, 0);
> +		break;
>  	default:
>  		acpi_handle_debug(handle, "Unsupported event [0x%x]\n", event);
>  		break;

I've obviously not read the link, but the above seems to suggest that
every CPU that has its limits changed gets the 'interrupt' ?