| 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: <CAKfTPtA_8fN-op7FhMg=zxjD9rNEvC_Lm_x7J0BK+YCwxUF+Og@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2023 14:07:58 +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 13:01, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Nov 07, 2023 at 12:18:20PM +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > 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
>
> Ah, I see; I'd not spotted that amu_scale_freq_tick() is doing some
> arithmetic on the value (it doesn't return anything because it's 'void').
> It's slightly confusing because the comment talks about SCHED_CAPACITY_SCALE
> whereas all the code works on the shift, but I get it now.
>
> > > > 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
>
> Isn't that already the case without this patch? In other words, this should
> be a separate change.
Currently the ratio is set in the same notifier callback before
registering the AMU function in topology_scale_freq_tick whereas there
are now done in 2 separate notifier callbacks (still for the same
event) but we don't know the order
>
> Will
Powered by blists - more mailing lists