linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 8/8] cpufreq: amd-pstate: Drop some uses of cpudata->hw

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: <Zs866Myvbs0ByoAK@BLRRASHENOY1.amd.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2024 20:27:44 +0530
From: "Gautham R. Shenoy" <gautham.shenoy@....com>
To: Andrea Righi <andrea.righi@...ux.dev>
Cc: Mario Limonciello <mario.limonciello@....com>,
	Mario Limonciello <superm1@...nel.org>,
	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Perry Yuan <perry.yuan@....com>,
	"maintainer:X86 ARCHITECTURE (32-BIT AND 64-BIT)" <x86@...nel.org>,
	"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
	"open list:X86 ARCHITECTURE (32-BIT AND 64-BIT)" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"open list:ACPI" <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
	"open list:CPU FREQUENCY SCALING FRAMEWORK" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
	changwoo@...lia.com, David Vernet <void@...ifault.com>,
	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 8/8] cpufreq: amd-pstate: Drop some uses of
 cpudata->hw_prefcore

Hello Andrea,

On Wed, Aug 28, 2024 at 08:20:50AM +0200, Andrea Righi wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 28, 2024 at 10:38:45AM +0530, Gautham R. Shenoy wrote:
> ...
> > > I had thought this was a malfunction in the behavior that it reflected the
> > > current status, not the hardware /capability/.
> > > 
> > > Which one makes more sense for userspace?  In my mind the most likely
> > > consumer of this information would be something a sched_ext based userspace
> > > scheduler.  They would need to know whether the scheduler was using
> > > preferred cores; not whether the hardware supported it.
> > 
> > The commandline parameter currently impacts only the fair sched-class
> > tasks since the preference information gets used only during
> > load-balancing.
> > 
> > IMO, the same should continue with sched-ext, i.e. if the user has
> > explicitly disabled prefcore support via commandline, the no sched-ext
> > scheduler should use the preference information to make task placement
> > decisions. However, I would like to see what the sched-ext folks have
> > to say. Adding some of them to the Cc list.
> 
> IMHO it makes more sense to reflect the real state of prefcore support
> from a "system" perspective, more than a "hardware" perspective, so if
> it's disabled via boot command line it should show disabled.
> 
> From a user-space scheduler perspective we should be fine either way, as
> long as the ABI is clearly documented, since we also have access to
> /proc/cmdline and we would be able to figure out if the user has
> disabled it via cmdline (however, the preference is still to report the
> actual system status).

Thank you for confirming this.

> 
> Question: having prefcore enabled affects also the value of
> scaling_max_freq? Like an `lscpu -e`, for example, would show a higher
> max frequency for the specific preferred cores? (this is another useful
> information from a sched_ext scheduler perspective).

Since the scaling_max_freq is computed based on the boost-numerator,
at least from this patchset, the numerator would be the same across
all kinds of cores, and thus the scaling_max_freq reported will be the
same across all the cores.

> 
> Thanks,
> -Andrea

--
Thanks and Regards
gautham.