linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 7/7] arm64/amu: Use capacity_ref

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAKfTPtBb+qea61OH-B0L=MHJWnQMLL80EBR-nSHZtoWTbYeHhw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 7 Nov 2023 12:18:20 +0100
From:   Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
To:     Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
Cc:     linux@...linux.org.uk, catalin.marinas@....com,
        paul.walmsley@...ive.com, palmer@...belt.com,
        aou@...s.berkeley.edu, sudeep.holla@....com,
        gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, rafael@...nel.org, mingo@...hat.com,
        peterz@...radead.org, juri.lelli@...hat.com,
        dietmar.eggemann@....com, rostedt@...dmis.org, bsegall@...gle.com,
        mgorman@...e.de, bristot@...hat.com, vschneid@...hat.com,
        viresh.kumar@...aro.org, lenb@...nel.org, robert.moore@...el.com,
        lukasz.luba@....com, ionela.voinescu@....com,
        pierre.gondois@....com, beata.michalska@....com,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, conor.dooley@...rochip.com,
        suagrfillet@...il.com, ajones@...tanamicro.com, lftan@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 7/7] arm64/amu: Use capacity_ref_freq to set AMU ratio

On Tue, 7 Nov 2023 at 11:38, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Nov 04, 2023 at 11:59:07AM +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > Use the new capacity_ref_freq to set the ratio that is used by AMU for
> > computing the arch_scale_freq_capacity().
> > This helps to keep everything aligned using the same reference for
> > computing CPUs capacity.
> >
> > The default value of the ratio (stored in per_cpu(arch_max_freq_scale))
> > ensures that arch_scale_freq_capacity() returns max capacity until it is
> > set to its correct value with the cpu capacity and capacity_ref_freq.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
> > ---
> >  arch/arm64/kernel/topology.c  | 26 ++++++++++++++------------
> >  drivers/base/arch_topology.c  | 12 +++++++++++-
> >  include/linux/arch_topology.h |  1 +
> >  3 files changed, 26 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/topology.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/topology.c
> > index 817d788cd866..615c1a20129f 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/topology.c
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/topology.c
> > @@ -82,7 +82,12 @@ int __init parse_acpi_topology(void)
> >  #undef pr_fmt
> >  #define pr_fmt(fmt) "AMU: " fmt
> >
> > -static DEFINE_PER_CPU_READ_MOSTLY(unsigned long, arch_max_freq_scale);
> > +/*
> > + * Ensure that amu_scale_freq_tick() will return SCHED_CAPACITY_SCALE until
> > + * the CPU capacity and its associated frequency have been correctly
> > + * initialized.
> > + */
> > +static DEFINE_PER_CPU_READ_MOSTLY(unsigned long, arch_max_freq_scale) =  1UL << (2 * SCHED_CAPACITY_SHIFT);
>
> This doesn't seem to match the comment? SCHED_CAPACITY_SCALE doesn't have
> the '2 *' multiplier.

The comment in freq_inv_set_max_ratio() says:

* We use a factor of 2 * SCHED_CAPACITY_SHIFT -> SCHED_CAPACITY_SCALE²
* in order to ensure a good resolution for arch_max_freq_scale for
* very low reference frequencies (down to the KHz range which should
* be unlikely).

Then there is a  "  * arch_max_freq_scale) >> SCHED_CAPACITY_SHIFT"
when computing the scale which brings the result back to
SCHED_CAPACITY_SHIFT

>
> >  static DEFINE_PER_CPU(u64, arch_const_cycles_prev);
> >  static DEFINE_PER_CPU(u64, arch_core_cycles_prev);
> >  static cpumask_var_t amu_fie_cpus;
> > @@ -112,14 +117,14 @@ static inline bool freq_counters_valid(int cpu)
> >       return true;
> >  }
> >
> > -static int freq_inv_set_max_ratio(int cpu, u64 max_rate, u64 ref_rate)
> > +void freq_inv_set_max_ratio(int cpu, u64 max_rate)
> >  {
> > -     u64 ratio;
> > +     u64 ratio, ref_rate = arch_timer_get_rate();
> >
> >       if (unlikely(!max_rate || !ref_rate)) {
> > -             pr_debug("CPU%d: invalid maximum or reference frequency.\n",
> > +             WARN_ONCE(1, "CPU%d: invalid maximum or reference frequency.\n",
> >                        cpu);
> > -             return -EINVAL;
> > +             return;
> >       }
> >
> >       /*
> > @@ -139,12 +144,12 @@ static int freq_inv_set_max_ratio(int cpu, u64 max_rate, u64 ref_rate)
> >       ratio = div64_u64(ratio, max_rate);
> >       if (!ratio) {
> >               WARN_ONCE(1, "Reference frequency too low.\n");
> > -             return -EINVAL;
> > +             return;
> >       }
> >
> > -     per_cpu(arch_max_freq_scale, cpu) = (unsigned long)ratio;
> > +     WRITE_ONCE(per_cpu(arch_max_freq_scale, cpu), (unsigned long)ratio);
>
> Why is WRITE_ONCE() now needed?

the tick can already use it. We want to make sure to use either the
old or the new one but not an intermediate value

>
> > -     return 0;
> > +     return;
>
> Pointless 'return;' statement.

fair enough

>
> Will