* [PATCH V3] cpufreq: Call transition notifier only once for each policy
@ 2019-03-20 4:52 ` Viresh Kumar
0 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: Viresh Kumar @ 2019-03-20 4:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Rafael Wysocki, Peter Zijlstra, Russell King, David S. Miller,
Thomas Gleixner, Ingo Molnar, Borislav Petkov, H. Peter Anvin,
x86, Paolo Bonzini, Radim Krčmář
Cc: Viresh Kumar, linux-pm, Vincent Guittot, linux-arm-kernel,
linux-kernel, sparclinux, kvm
Currently we call these notifiers once for each CPU of the policy->cpus
cpumask. It would be more optimal if the notifier can be called only
once and all the relevant information be provided to it. Out of the 23
drivers that register for the transition notifiers today, only 4 of them
do per-cpu updates and the callback for the rest can be called only once
for the policy without any impact.
This would also avoid multiple function calls to the notifier callbacks
and reduce multiple iterations of notifier core's code (which does
locking as well).
This patch adds pointer to the cpufreq policy to the struct
cpufreq_freqs, so the notifier callback has all the information
available to it with a single call. The five drivers which perform
per-cpu updates are updated to use the cpufreq policy. The freqs->cpu
field is redundant now and is removed.
Acked-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net> (sparc)
Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
---
V2->V3:
- Drop changes for arch/arm/kernel/smp_twd.c as the notifier is removed
in 5.1-rc1.
- Changed implementation in tsc.c as suggested by Rafael and Peterz. We
now WARN if more than one CPU is present in the policy.
- Rebased over 5.1-rc1.
arch/arm/kernel/smp.c | 24 +++++++++++++++---------
arch/sparc/kernel/time_64.c | 28 ++++++++++++++++------------
arch/x86/kernel/tsc.c | 9 +++++++--
arch/x86/kvm/x86.c | 31 ++++++++++++++++++++-----------
drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 19 ++++++++++---------
include/linux/cpufreq.h | 14 +++++++-------
6 files changed, 75 insertions(+), 50 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm/kernel/smp.c b/arch/arm/kernel/smp.c
index facd4240ca02..c6d37563610a 100644
--- a/arch/arm/kernel/smp.c
+++ b/arch/arm/kernel/smp.c
@@ -754,15 +754,20 @@ static int cpufreq_callback(struct notifier_block *nb,
unsigned long val, void *data)
{
struct cpufreq_freqs *freq = data;
- int cpu = freq->cpu;
+ struct cpumask *cpus = freq->policy->cpus;
+ int cpu, first = cpumask_first(cpus);
+ unsigned int lpj;
if (freq->flags & CPUFREQ_CONST_LOOPS)
return NOTIFY_OK;
- if (!per_cpu(l_p_j_ref, cpu)) {
- per_cpu(l_p_j_ref, cpu) - per_cpu(cpu_data, cpu).loops_per_jiffy;
- per_cpu(l_p_j_ref_freq, cpu) = freq->old;
+ if (!per_cpu(l_p_j_ref, first)) {
+ for_each_cpu(cpu, cpus) {
+ per_cpu(l_p_j_ref, cpu) + per_cpu(cpu_data, cpu).loops_per_jiffy;
+ per_cpu(l_p_j_ref_freq, cpu) = freq->old;
+ }
+
if (!global_l_p_j_ref) {
global_l_p_j_ref = loops_per_jiffy;
global_l_p_j_ref_freq = freq->old;
@@ -774,10 +779,11 @@ static int cpufreq_callback(struct notifier_block *nb,
loops_per_jiffy = cpufreq_scale(global_l_p_j_ref,
global_l_p_j_ref_freq,
freq->new);
- per_cpu(cpu_data, cpu).loops_per_jiffy - cpufreq_scale(per_cpu(l_p_j_ref, cpu),
- per_cpu(l_p_j_ref_freq, cpu),
- freq->new);
+
+ lpj = cpufreq_scale(per_cpu(l_p_j_ref, first),
+ per_cpu(l_p_j_ref_freq, first), freq->new);
+ for_each_cpu(cpu, cpus)
+ per_cpu(cpu_data, cpu).loops_per_jiffy = lpj;
}
return NOTIFY_OK;
}
diff --git a/arch/sparc/kernel/time_64.c b/arch/sparc/kernel/time_64.c
index 3eb77943ce12..89fb05f90609 100644
--- a/arch/sparc/kernel/time_64.c
+++ b/arch/sparc/kernel/time_64.c
@@ -653,19 +653,23 @@ static int sparc64_cpufreq_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb, unsigned long val
void *data)
{
struct cpufreq_freqs *freq = data;
- unsigned int cpu = freq->cpu;
- struct freq_table *ft = &per_cpu(sparc64_freq_table, cpu);
+ unsigned int cpu;
+ struct freq_table *ft;
- if (!ft->ref_freq) {
- ft->ref_freq = freq->old;
- ft->clock_tick_ref = cpu_data(cpu).clock_tick;
- }
- if ((val = CPUFREQ_PRECHANGE && freq->old < freq->new) ||
- (val = CPUFREQ_POSTCHANGE && freq->old > freq->new)) {
- cpu_data(cpu).clock_tick - cpufreq_scale(ft->clock_tick_ref,
- ft->ref_freq,
- freq->new);
+ for_each_cpu(cpu, freq->policy->cpus) {
+ ft = &per_cpu(sparc64_freq_table, cpu);
+
+ if (!ft->ref_freq) {
+ ft->ref_freq = freq->old;
+ ft->clock_tick_ref = cpu_data(cpu).clock_tick;
+ }
+
+ if ((val = CPUFREQ_PRECHANGE && freq->old < freq->new) ||
+ (val = CPUFREQ_POSTCHANGE && freq->old > freq->new)) {
+ cpu_data(cpu).clock_tick + cpufreq_scale(ft->clock_tick_ref, ft->ref_freq,
+ freq->new);
+ }
}
return 0;
diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/tsc.c b/arch/x86/kernel/tsc.c
index 3fae23834069..b2fe665878f7 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/tsc.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/tsc.c
@@ -958,10 +958,15 @@ static int time_cpufreq_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb, unsigned long val,
struct cpufreq_freqs *freq = data;
unsigned long *lpj;
+ if (WARN_ON_ONCE(cpumask_weight(freq->policy->related_cpus) != 1)) {
+ mark_tsc_unstable("cpufreq changes: related CPUs affected");
+ return 0;
+ }
+
lpj = &boot_cpu_data.loops_per_jiffy;
#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
if (!(freq->flags & CPUFREQ_CONST_LOOPS))
- lpj = &cpu_data(freq->cpu).loops_per_jiffy;
+ lpj = &cpu_data(freq->policy->cpu).loops_per_jiffy;
#endif
if (!ref_freq) {
@@ -977,7 +982,7 @@ static int time_cpufreq_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb, unsigned long val,
if (!(freq->flags & CPUFREQ_CONST_LOOPS))
mark_tsc_unstable("cpufreq changes");
- set_cyc2ns_scale(tsc_khz, freq->cpu, rdtsc());
+ set_cyc2ns_scale(tsc_khz, freq->policy->cpu, rdtsc());
}
return 0;
diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
index 65e4559eef2f..1ac8c710cccc 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
@@ -6649,10 +6649,8 @@ static void kvm_hyperv_tsc_notifier(void)
}
#endif
-static int kvmclock_cpufreq_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb, unsigned long val,
- void *data)
+static void __kvmclock_cpufreq_notifier(struct cpufreq_freqs *freq, int cpu)
{
- struct cpufreq_freqs *freq = data;
struct kvm *kvm;
struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu;
int i, send_ipi = 0;
@@ -6696,17 +6694,12 @@ static int kvmclock_cpufreq_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb, unsigned long va
*
*/
- if (val = CPUFREQ_PRECHANGE && freq->old > freq->new)
- return 0;
- if (val = CPUFREQ_POSTCHANGE && freq->old < freq->new)
- return 0;
-
- smp_call_function_single(freq->cpu, tsc_khz_changed, freq, 1);
+ smp_call_function_single(cpu, tsc_khz_changed, freq, 1);
spin_lock(&kvm_lock);
list_for_each_entry(kvm, &vm_list, vm_list) {
kvm_for_each_vcpu(i, vcpu, kvm) {
- if (vcpu->cpu != freq->cpu)
+ if (vcpu->cpu != cpu)
continue;
kvm_make_request(KVM_REQ_CLOCK_UPDATE, vcpu);
if (vcpu->cpu != smp_processor_id())
@@ -6728,8 +6721,24 @@ static int kvmclock_cpufreq_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb, unsigned long va
* guest context is entered kvmclock will be updated,
* so the guest will not see stale values.
*/
- smp_call_function_single(freq->cpu, tsc_khz_changed, freq, 1);
+ smp_call_function_single(cpu, tsc_khz_changed, freq, 1);
}
+}
+
+static int kvmclock_cpufreq_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb, unsigned long val,
+ void *data)
+{
+ struct cpufreq_freqs *freq = data;
+ int cpu;
+
+ if (val = CPUFREQ_PRECHANGE && freq->old > freq->new)
+ return 0;
+ if (val = CPUFREQ_POSTCHANGE && freq->old < freq->new)
+ return 0;
+
+ for_each_cpu(cpu, freq->policy->cpus)
+ __kvmclock_cpufreq_notifier(freq, cpu);
+
return 0;
}
diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
index e10922709d13..fba38bf27d26 100644
--- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
+++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
@@ -300,11 +300,14 @@ static void cpufreq_notify_transition(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
struct cpufreq_freqs *freqs,
unsigned int state)
{
+ int cpu;
+
BUG_ON(irqs_disabled());
if (cpufreq_disabled())
return;
+ freqs->policy = policy;
freqs->flags = cpufreq_driver->flags;
pr_debug("notification %u of frequency transition to %u kHz\n",
state, freqs->new);
@@ -324,10 +327,8 @@ static void cpufreq_notify_transition(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
}
}
- for_each_cpu(freqs->cpu, policy->cpus) {
- srcu_notifier_call_chain(&cpufreq_transition_notifier_list,
- CPUFREQ_PRECHANGE, freqs);
- }
+ srcu_notifier_call_chain(&cpufreq_transition_notifier_list,
+ CPUFREQ_PRECHANGE, freqs);
adjust_jiffies(CPUFREQ_PRECHANGE, freqs);
break;
@@ -337,11 +338,11 @@ static void cpufreq_notify_transition(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
pr_debug("FREQ: %u - CPUs: %*pbl\n", freqs->new,
cpumask_pr_args(policy->cpus));
- for_each_cpu(freqs->cpu, policy->cpus) {
- trace_cpu_frequency(freqs->new, freqs->cpu);
- srcu_notifier_call_chain(&cpufreq_transition_notifier_list,
- CPUFREQ_POSTCHANGE, freqs);
- }
+ for_each_cpu(cpu, policy->cpus)
+ trace_cpu_frequency(freqs->new, cpu);
+
+ srcu_notifier_call_chain(&cpufreq_transition_notifier_list,
+ CPUFREQ_POSTCHANGE, freqs);
cpufreq_stats_record_transition(policy, freqs->new);
policy->cur = freqs->new;
diff --git a/include/linux/cpufreq.h b/include/linux/cpufreq.h
index b160e98076e3..e327523ddff2 100644
--- a/include/linux/cpufreq.h
+++ b/include/linux/cpufreq.h
@@ -42,13 +42,6 @@ enum cpufreq_table_sorting {
CPUFREQ_TABLE_SORTED_DESCENDING
};
-struct cpufreq_freqs {
- unsigned int cpu; /* cpu nr */
- unsigned int old;
- unsigned int new;
- u8 flags; /* flags of cpufreq_driver, see below. */
-};
-
struct cpufreq_cpuinfo {
unsigned int max_freq;
unsigned int min_freq;
@@ -156,6 +149,13 @@ struct cpufreq_policy {
struct thermal_cooling_device *cdev;
};
+struct cpufreq_freqs {
+ struct cpufreq_policy *policy;
+ unsigned int old;
+ unsigned int new;
+ u8 flags; /* flags of cpufreq_driver, see below. */
+};
+
/* Only for ACPI */
#define CPUFREQ_SHARED_TYPE_NONE (0) /* None */
#define CPUFREQ_SHARED_TYPE_HW (1) /* HW does needed coordination */
--
2.21.0.rc0.269.g1a574e7a288b
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread* [PATCH V3] cpufreq: Call transition notifier only once for each policy
@ 2019-03-20 4:52 ` Viresh Kumar
0 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: Viresh Kumar @ 2019-03-20 4:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Rafael Wysocki, Peter Zijlstra, Russell King, David S. Miller,
Thomas Gleixner, Ingo Molnar, Borislav Petkov, H. Peter Anvin,
x86, Paolo Bonzini, Radim Krčmář
Cc: Vincent Guittot, kvm, linux-pm, Viresh Kumar, linux-kernel,
sparclinux, linux-arm-kernel
Currently we call these notifiers once for each CPU of the policy->cpus
cpumask. It would be more optimal if the notifier can be called only
once and all the relevant information be provided to it. Out of the 23
drivers that register for the transition notifiers today, only 4 of them
do per-cpu updates and the callback for the rest can be called only once
for the policy without any impact.
This would also avoid multiple function calls to the notifier callbacks
and reduce multiple iterations of notifier core's code (which does
locking as well).
This patch adds pointer to the cpufreq policy to the struct
cpufreq_freqs, so the notifier callback has all the information
available to it with a single call. The five drivers which perform
per-cpu updates are updated to use the cpufreq policy. The freqs->cpu
field is redundant now and is removed.
Acked-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net> (sparc)
Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
---
V2->V3:
- Drop changes for arch/arm/kernel/smp_twd.c as the notifier is removed
in 5.1-rc1.
- Changed implementation in tsc.c as suggested by Rafael and Peterz. We
now WARN if more than one CPU is present in the policy.
- Rebased over 5.1-rc1.
arch/arm/kernel/smp.c | 24 +++++++++++++++---------
arch/sparc/kernel/time_64.c | 28 ++++++++++++++++------------
arch/x86/kernel/tsc.c | 9 +++++++--
arch/x86/kvm/x86.c | 31 ++++++++++++++++++++-----------
drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 19 ++++++++++---------
include/linux/cpufreq.h | 14 +++++++-------
6 files changed, 75 insertions(+), 50 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm/kernel/smp.c b/arch/arm/kernel/smp.c
index facd4240ca02..c6d37563610a 100644
--- a/arch/arm/kernel/smp.c
+++ b/arch/arm/kernel/smp.c
@@ -754,15 +754,20 @@ static int cpufreq_callback(struct notifier_block *nb,
unsigned long val, void *data)
{
struct cpufreq_freqs *freq = data;
- int cpu = freq->cpu;
+ struct cpumask *cpus = freq->policy->cpus;
+ int cpu, first = cpumask_first(cpus);
+ unsigned int lpj;
if (freq->flags & CPUFREQ_CONST_LOOPS)
return NOTIFY_OK;
- if (!per_cpu(l_p_j_ref, cpu)) {
- per_cpu(l_p_j_ref, cpu) =
- per_cpu(cpu_data, cpu).loops_per_jiffy;
- per_cpu(l_p_j_ref_freq, cpu) = freq->old;
+ if (!per_cpu(l_p_j_ref, first)) {
+ for_each_cpu(cpu, cpus) {
+ per_cpu(l_p_j_ref, cpu) =
+ per_cpu(cpu_data, cpu).loops_per_jiffy;
+ per_cpu(l_p_j_ref_freq, cpu) = freq->old;
+ }
+
if (!global_l_p_j_ref) {
global_l_p_j_ref = loops_per_jiffy;
global_l_p_j_ref_freq = freq->old;
@@ -774,10 +779,11 @@ static int cpufreq_callback(struct notifier_block *nb,
loops_per_jiffy = cpufreq_scale(global_l_p_j_ref,
global_l_p_j_ref_freq,
freq->new);
- per_cpu(cpu_data, cpu).loops_per_jiffy =
- cpufreq_scale(per_cpu(l_p_j_ref, cpu),
- per_cpu(l_p_j_ref_freq, cpu),
- freq->new);
+
+ lpj = cpufreq_scale(per_cpu(l_p_j_ref, first),
+ per_cpu(l_p_j_ref_freq, first), freq->new);
+ for_each_cpu(cpu, cpus)
+ per_cpu(cpu_data, cpu).loops_per_jiffy = lpj;
}
return NOTIFY_OK;
}
diff --git a/arch/sparc/kernel/time_64.c b/arch/sparc/kernel/time_64.c
index 3eb77943ce12..89fb05f90609 100644
--- a/arch/sparc/kernel/time_64.c
+++ b/arch/sparc/kernel/time_64.c
@@ -653,19 +653,23 @@ static int sparc64_cpufreq_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb, unsigned long val
void *data)
{
struct cpufreq_freqs *freq = data;
- unsigned int cpu = freq->cpu;
- struct freq_table *ft = &per_cpu(sparc64_freq_table, cpu);
+ unsigned int cpu;
+ struct freq_table *ft;
- if (!ft->ref_freq) {
- ft->ref_freq = freq->old;
- ft->clock_tick_ref = cpu_data(cpu).clock_tick;
- }
- if ((val == CPUFREQ_PRECHANGE && freq->old < freq->new) ||
- (val == CPUFREQ_POSTCHANGE && freq->old > freq->new)) {
- cpu_data(cpu).clock_tick =
- cpufreq_scale(ft->clock_tick_ref,
- ft->ref_freq,
- freq->new);
+ for_each_cpu(cpu, freq->policy->cpus) {
+ ft = &per_cpu(sparc64_freq_table, cpu);
+
+ if (!ft->ref_freq) {
+ ft->ref_freq = freq->old;
+ ft->clock_tick_ref = cpu_data(cpu).clock_tick;
+ }
+
+ if ((val == CPUFREQ_PRECHANGE && freq->old < freq->new) ||
+ (val == CPUFREQ_POSTCHANGE && freq->old > freq->new)) {
+ cpu_data(cpu).clock_tick =
+ cpufreq_scale(ft->clock_tick_ref, ft->ref_freq,
+ freq->new);
+ }
}
return 0;
diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/tsc.c b/arch/x86/kernel/tsc.c
index 3fae23834069..b2fe665878f7 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/tsc.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/tsc.c
@@ -958,10 +958,15 @@ static int time_cpufreq_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb, unsigned long val,
struct cpufreq_freqs *freq = data;
unsigned long *lpj;
+ if (WARN_ON_ONCE(cpumask_weight(freq->policy->related_cpus) != 1)) {
+ mark_tsc_unstable("cpufreq changes: related CPUs affected");
+ return 0;
+ }
+
lpj = &boot_cpu_data.loops_per_jiffy;
#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
if (!(freq->flags & CPUFREQ_CONST_LOOPS))
- lpj = &cpu_data(freq->cpu).loops_per_jiffy;
+ lpj = &cpu_data(freq->policy->cpu).loops_per_jiffy;
#endif
if (!ref_freq) {
@@ -977,7 +982,7 @@ static int time_cpufreq_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb, unsigned long val,
if (!(freq->flags & CPUFREQ_CONST_LOOPS))
mark_tsc_unstable("cpufreq changes");
- set_cyc2ns_scale(tsc_khz, freq->cpu, rdtsc());
+ set_cyc2ns_scale(tsc_khz, freq->policy->cpu, rdtsc());
}
return 0;
diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
index 65e4559eef2f..1ac8c710cccc 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
@@ -6649,10 +6649,8 @@ static void kvm_hyperv_tsc_notifier(void)
}
#endif
-static int kvmclock_cpufreq_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb, unsigned long val,
- void *data)
+static void __kvmclock_cpufreq_notifier(struct cpufreq_freqs *freq, int cpu)
{
- struct cpufreq_freqs *freq = data;
struct kvm *kvm;
struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu;
int i, send_ipi = 0;
@@ -6696,17 +6694,12 @@ static int kvmclock_cpufreq_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb, unsigned long va
*
*/
- if (val == CPUFREQ_PRECHANGE && freq->old > freq->new)
- return 0;
- if (val == CPUFREQ_POSTCHANGE && freq->old < freq->new)
- return 0;
-
- smp_call_function_single(freq->cpu, tsc_khz_changed, freq, 1);
+ smp_call_function_single(cpu, tsc_khz_changed, freq, 1);
spin_lock(&kvm_lock);
list_for_each_entry(kvm, &vm_list, vm_list) {
kvm_for_each_vcpu(i, vcpu, kvm) {
- if (vcpu->cpu != freq->cpu)
+ if (vcpu->cpu != cpu)
continue;
kvm_make_request(KVM_REQ_CLOCK_UPDATE, vcpu);
if (vcpu->cpu != smp_processor_id())
@@ -6728,8 +6721,24 @@ static int kvmclock_cpufreq_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb, unsigned long va
* guest context is entered kvmclock will be updated,
* so the guest will not see stale values.
*/
- smp_call_function_single(freq->cpu, tsc_khz_changed, freq, 1);
+ smp_call_function_single(cpu, tsc_khz_changed, freq, 1);
}
+}
+
+static int kvmclock_cpufreq_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb, unsigned long val,
+ void *data)
+{
+ struct cpufreq_freqs *freq = data;
+ int cpu;
+
+ if (val == CPUFREQ_PRECHANGE && freq->old > freq->new)
+ return 0;
+ if (val == CPUFREQ_POSTCHANGE && freq->old < freq->new)
+ return 0;
+
+ for_each_cpu(cpu, freq->policy->cpus)
+ __kvmclock_cpufreq_notifier(freq, cpu);
+
return 0;
}
diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
index e10922709d13..fba38bf27d26 100644
--- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
+++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
@@ -300,11 +300,14 @@ static void cpufreq_notify_transition(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
struct cpufreq_freqs *freqs,
unsigned int state)
{
+ int cpu;
+
BUG_ON(irqs_disabled());
if (cpufreq_disabled())
return;
+ freqs->policy = policy;
freqs->flags = cpufreq_driver->flags;
pr_debug("notification %u of frequency transition to %u kHz\n",
state, freqs->new);
@@ -324,10 +327,8 @@ static void cpufreq_notify_transition(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
}
}
- for_each_cpu(freqs->cpu, policy->cpus) {
- srcu_notifier_call_chain(&cpufreq_transition_notifier_list,
- CPUFREQ_PRECHANGE, freqs);
- }
+ srcu_notifier_call_chain(&cpufreq_transition_notifier_list,
+ CPUFREQ_PRECHANGE, freqs);
adjust_jiffies(CPUFREQ_PRECHANGE, freqs);
break;
@@ -337,11 +338,11 @@ static void cpufreq_notify_transition(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
pr_debug("FREQ: %u - CPUs: %*pbl\n", freqs->new,
cpumask_pr_args(policy->cpus));
- for_each_cpu(freqs->cpu, policy->cpus) {
- trace_cpu_frequency(freqs->new, freqs->cpu);
- srcu_notifier_call_chain(&cpufreq_transition_notifier_list,
- CPUFREQ_POSTCHANGE, freqs);
- }
+ for_each_cpu(cpu, policy->cpus)
+ trace_cpu_frequency(freqs->new, cpu);
+
+ srcu_notifier_call_chain(&cpufreq_transition_notifier_list,
+ CPUFREQ_POSTCHANGE, freqs);
cpufreq_stats_record_transition(policy, freqs->new);
policy->cur = freqs->new;
diff --git a/include/linux/cpufreq.h b/include/linux/cpufreq.h
index b160e98076e3..e327523ddff2 100644
--- a/include/linux/cpufreq.h
+++ b/include/linux/cpufreq.h
@@ -42,13 +42,6 @@ enum cpufreq_table_sorting {
CPUFREQ_TABLE_SORTED_DESCENDING
};
-struct cpufreq_freqs {
- unsigned int cpu; /* cpu nr */
- unsigned int old;
- unsigned int new;
- u8 flags; /* flags of cpufreq_driver, see below. */
-};
-
struct cpufreq_cpuinfo {
unsigned int max_freq;
unsigned int min_freq;
@@ -156,6 +149,13 @@ struct cpufreq_policy {
struct thermal_cooling_device *cdev;
};
+struct cpufreq_freqs {
+ struct cpufreq_policy *policy;
+ unsigned int old;
+ unsigned int new;
+ u8 flags; /* flags of cpufreq_driver, see below. */
+};
+
/* Only for ACPI */
#define CPUFREQ_SHARED_TYPE_NONE (0) /* None */
#define CPUFREQ_SHARED_TYPE_HW (1) /* HW does needed coordination */
--
2.21.0.rc0.269.g1a574e7a288b
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH V3] cpufreq: Call transition notifier only once for each policy
2019-03-20 4:52 ` Viresh Kumar
(?)
(?)
@ 2019-03-21 11:45 ` Peter Zijlstra
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: Peter Zijlstra @ 2019-03-21 11:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Viresh Kumar
Cc: Rafael Wysocki, Russell King, David S. Miller, Thomas Gleixner,
Ingo Molnar, Borislav Petkov, H. Peter Anvin, x86, Paolo Bonzini,
Radim Krčmář,
linux-pm, Vincent Guittot, linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel,
sparclinux, kvm
On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 10:22:23AM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/tsc.c b/arch/x86/kernel/tsc.c
> index 3fae23834069..b2fe665878f7 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/tsc.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/tsc.c
> @@ -958,10 +958,15 @@ static int time_cpufreq_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb, unsigned long val,
> struct cpufreq_freqs *freq = data;
> unsigned long *lpj;
>
> + if (WARN_ON_ONCE(cpumask_weight(freq->policy->related_cpus) != 1)) {
> + mark_tsc_unstable("cpufreq changes: related CPUs affected");
I suspect this is a big fat nop, but it won't hurt.
> + return 0;
> + }
> +
> lpj = &boot_cpu_data.loops_per_jiffy;
> #ifdef CONFIG_SMP
> if (!(freq->flags & CPUFREQ_CONST_LOOPS))
> - lpj = &cpu_data(freq->cpu).loops_per_jiffy;
> + lpj = &cpu_data(freq->policy->cpu).loops_per_jiffy;
> #endif
>
> if (!ref_freq) {
> @@ -977,7 +982,7 @@ static int time_cpufreq_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb, unsigned long val,
> if (!(freq->flags & CPUFREQ_CONST_LOOPS))
> mark_tsc_unstable("cpufreq changes");
>
> - set_cyc2ns_scale(tsc_khz, freq->cpu, rdtsc());
> + set_cyc2ns_scale(tsc_khz, freq->policy->cpu, rdtsc());
> }
>
> return 0;
Just wondering, since we say x86 cpufreq handlers will only have a
single CPU here,
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> index 65e4559eef2f..1ac8c710cccc 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> @@ -6649,10 +6649,8 @@ static void kvm_hyperv_tsc_notifier(void)
> }
> #endif
>
> -static int kvmclock_cpufreq_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb, unsigned long val,
> - void *data)
> +static void __kvmclock_cpufreq_notifier(struct cpufreq_freqs *freq, int cpu)
> {
> - struct cpufreq_freqs *freq = data;
> struct kvm *kvm;
> struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu;
> int i, send_ipi = 0;
> @@ -6696,17 +6694,12 @@ static int kvmclock_cpufreq_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb, unsigned long va
> *
> */
>
> - if (val == CPUFREQ_PRECHANGE && freq->old > freq->new)
> - return 0;
> - if (val == CPUFREQ_POSTCHANGE && freq->old < freq->new)
> - return 0;
> -
> - smp_call_function_single(freq->cpu, tsc_khz_changed, freq, 1);
> + smp_call_function_single(cpu, tsc_khz_changed, freq, 1);
>
> spin_lock(&kvm_lock);
> list_for_each_entry(kvm, &vm_list, vm_list) {
> kvm_for_each_vcpu(i, vcpu, kvm) {
> - if (vcpu->cpu != freq->cpu)
> + if (vcpu->cpu != cpu)
> continue;
> kvm_make_request(KVM_REQ_CLOCK_UPDATE, vcpu);
> if (vcpu->cpu != smp_processor_id())
> @@ -6728,8 +6721,24 @@ static int kvmclock_cpufreq_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb, unsigned long va
> * guest context is entered kvmclock will be updated,
> * so the guest will not see stale values.
> */
> - smp_call_function_single(freq->cpu, tsc_khz_changed, freq, 1);
> + smp_call_function_single(cpu, tsc_khz_changed, freq, 1);
> }
> +}
> +
> +static int kvmclock_cpufreq_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb, unsigned long val,
> + void *data)
> +{
> + struct cpufreq_freqs *freq = data;
> + int cpu;
> +
> + if (val == CPUFREQ_PRECHANGE && freq->old > freq->new)
> + return 0;
> + if (val == CPUFREQ_POSTCHANGE && freq->old < freq->new)
> + return 0;
> +
> + for_each_cpu(cpu, freq->policy->cpus)
> + __kvmclock_cpufreq_notifier(freq, cpu);
> +
> return 0;
> }
>
Then why to we pretend otherwise here?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH V3] cpufreq: Call transition notifier only once for each policy
@ 2019-03-21 11:45 ` Peter Zijlstra
0 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: Peter Zijlstra @ 2019-03-21 11:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Viresh Kumar
Cc: Vincent Guittot, kvm, Radim Krčmář,
linux-pm, x86, Rafael Wysocki, Russell King, linux-kernel,
Ingo Molnar, Borislav Petkov, H. Peter Anvin, sparclinux,
Paolo Bonzini, Thomas Gleixner, David S. Miller,
linux-arm-kernel
On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 10:22:23AM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/tsc.c b/arch/x86/kernel/tsc.c
> index 3fae23834069..b2fe665878f7 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/tsc.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/tsc.c
> @@ -958,10 +958,15 @@ static int time_cpufreq_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb, unsigned long val,
> struct cpufreq_freqs *freq = data;
> unsigned long *lpj;
>
> + if (WARN_ON_ONCE(cpumask_weight(freq->policy->related_cpus) != 1)) {
> + mark_tsc_unstable("cpufreq changes: related CPUs affected");
I suspect this is a big fat nop, but it won't hurt.
> + return 0;
> + }
> +
> lpj = &boot_cpu_data.loops_per_jiffy;
> #ifdef CONFIG_SMP
> if (!(freq->flags & CPUFREQ_CONST_LOOPS))
> - lpj = &cpu_data(freq->cpu).loops_per_jiffy;
> + lpj = &cpu_data(freq->policy->cpu).loops_per_jiffy;
> #endif
>
> if (!ref_freq) {
> @@ -977,7 +982,7 @@ static int time_cpufreq_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb, unsigned long val,
> if (!(freq->flags & CPUFREQ_CONST_LOOPS))
> mark_tsc_unstable("cpufreq changes");
>
> - set_cyc2ns_scale(tsc_khz, freq->cpu, rdtsc());
> + set_cyc2ns_scale(tsc_khz, freq->policy->cpu, rdtsc());
> }
>
> return 0;
Just wondering, since we say x86 cpufreq handlers will only have a
single CPU here,
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> index 65e4559eef2f..1ac8c710cccc 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> @@ -6649,10 +6649,8 @@ static void kvm_hyperv_tsc_notifier(void)
> }
> #endif
>
> -static int kvmclock_cpufreq_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb, unsigned long val,
> - void *data)
> +static void __kvmclock_cpufreq_notifier(struct cpufreq_freqs *freq, int cpu)
> {
> - struct cpufreq_freqs *freq = data;
> struct kvm *kvm;
> struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu;
> int i, send_ipi = 0;
> @@ -6696,17 +6694,12 @@ static int kvmclock_cpufreq_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb, unsigned long va
> *
> */
>
> - if (val == CPUFREQ_PRECHANGE && freq->old > freq->new)
> - return 0;
> - if (val == CPUFREQ_POSTCHANGE && freq->old < freq->new)
> - return 0;
> -
> - smp_call_function_single(freq->cpu, tsc_khz_changed, freq, 1);
> + smp_call_function_single(cpu, tsc_khz_changed, freq, 1);
>
> spin_lock(&kvm_lock);
> list_for_each_entry(kvm, &vm_list, vm_list) {
> kvm_for_each_vcpu(i, vcpu, kvm) {
> - if (vcpu->cpu != freq->cpu)
> + if (vcpu->cpu != cpu)
> continue;
> kvm_make_request(KVM_REQ_CLOCK_UPDATE, vcpu);
> if (vcpu->cpu != smp_processor_id())
> @@ -6728,8 +6721,24 @@ static int kvmclock_cpufreq_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb, unsigned long va
> * guest context is entered kvmclock will be updated,
> * so the guest will not see stale values.
> */
> - smp_call_function_single(freq->cpu, tsc_khz_changed, freq, 1);
> + smp_call_function_single(cpu, tsc_khz_changed, freq, 1);
> }
> +}
> +
> +static int kvmclock_cpufreq_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb, unsigned long val,
> + void *data)
> +{
> + struct cpufreq_freqs *freq = data;
> + int cpu;
> +
> + if (val == CPUFREQ_PRECHANGE && freq->old > freq->new)
> + return 0;
> + if (val == CPUFREQ_POSTCHANGE && freq->old < freq->new)
> + return 0;
> +
> + for_each_cpu(cpu, freq->policy->cpus)
> + __kvmclock_cpufreq_notifier(freq, cpu);
> +
> return 0;
> }
>
Then why to we pretend otherwise here?
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH V3] cpufreq: Call transition notifier only once for each policy
@ 2019-03-21 11:45 ` Peter Zijlstra
0 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: Peter Zijlstra @ 2019-03-21 11:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Viresh Kumar
Cc: Vincent Guittot, kvm, Radim Krčmář,
linux-pm, x86, Rafael Wysocki, Russell King, linux-kernel,
Ingo Molnar, Borislav Petkov, H. Peter Anvin, sparclinux,
Paolo Bonzini, Thomas Gleixner, David S. Miller,
linux-arm-kernel
On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 10:22:23AM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/tsc.c b/arch/x86/kernel/tsc.c
> index 3fae23834069..b2fe665878f7 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/tsc.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/tsc.c
> @@ -958,10 +958,15 @@ static int time_cpufreq_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb, unsigned long val,
> struct cpufreq_freqs *freq = data;
> unsigned long *lpj;
>
> + if (WARN_ON_ONCE(cpumask_weight(freq->policy->related_cpus) != 1)) {
> + mark_tsc_unstable("cpufreq changes: related CPUs affected");
I suspect this is a big fat nop, but it won't hurt.
> + return 0;
> + }
> +
> lpj = &boot_cpu_data.loops_per_jiffy;
> #ifdef CONFIG_SMP
> if (!(freq->flags & CPUFREQ_CONST_LOOPS))
> - lpj = &cpu_data(freq->cpu).loops_per_jiffy;
> + lpj = &cpu_data(freq->policy->cpu).loops_per_jiffy;
> #endif
>
> if (!ref_freq) {
> @@ -977,7 +982,7 @@ static int time_cpufreq_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb, unsigned long val,
> if (!(freq->flags & CPUFREQ_CONST_LOOPS))
> mark_tsc_unstable("cpufreq changes");
>
> - set_cyc2ns_scale(tsc_khz, freq->cpu, rdtsc());
> + set_cyc2ns_scale(tsc_khz, freq->policy->cpu, rdtsc());
> }
>
> return 0;
Just wondering, since we say x86 cpufreq handlers will only have a
single CPU here,
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> index 65e4559eef2f..1ac8c710cccc 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> @@ -6649,10 +6649,8 @@ static void kvm_hyperv_tsc_notifier(void)
> }
> #endif
>
> -static int kvmclock_cpufreq_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb, unsigned long val,
> - void *data)
> +static void __kvmclock_cpufreq_notifier(struct cpufreq_freqs *freq, int cpu)
> {
> - struct cpufreq_freqs *freq = data;
> struct kvm *kvm;
> struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu;
> int i, send_ipi = 0;
> @@ -6696,17 +6694,12 @@ static int kvmclock_cpufreq_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb, unsigned long va
> *
> */
>
> - if (val = CPUFREQ_PRECHANGE && freq->old > freq->new)
> - return 0;
> - if (val = CPUFREQ_POSTCHANGE && freq->old < freq->new)
> - return 0;
> -
> - smp_call_function_single(freq->cpu, tsc_khz_changed, freq, 1);
> + smp_call_function_single(cpu, tsc_khz_changed, freq, 1);
>
> spin_lock(&kvm_lock);
> list_for_each_entry(kvm, &vm_list, vm_list) {
> kvm_for_each_vcpu(i, vcpu, kvm) {
> - if (vcpu->cpu != freq->cpu)
> + if (vcpu->cpu != cpu)
> continue;
> kvm_make_request(KVM_REQ_CLOCK_UPDATE, vcpu);
> if (vcpu->cpu != smp_processor_id())
> @@ -6728,8 +6721,24 @@ static int kvmclock_cpufreq_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb, unsigned long va
> * guest context is entered kvmclock will be updated,
> * so the guest will not see stale values.
> */
> - smp_call_function_single(freq->cpu, tsc_khz_changed, freq, 1);
> + smp_call_function_single(cpu, tsc_khz_changed, freq, 1);
> }
> +}
> +
> +static int kvmclock_cpufreq_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb, unsigned long val,
> + void *data)
> +{
> + struct cpufreq_freqs *freq = data;
> + int cpu;
> +
> + if (val = CPUFREQ_PRECHANGE && freq->old > freq->new)
> + return 0;
> + if (val = CPUFREQ_POSTCHANGE && freq->old < freq->new)
> + return 0;
> +
> + for_each_cpu(cpu, freq->policy->cpus)
> + __kvmclock_cpufreq_notifier(freq, cpu);
> +
> return 0;
> }
>
Then why to we pretend otherwise here?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH V3] cpufreq: Call transition notifier only once for each policy
@ 2019-03-21 11:45 ` Peter Zijlstra
0 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: Peter Zijlstra @ 2019-03-21 11:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Viresh Kumar
Cc: Vincent Guittot, kvm, Radim Krčmář,
linux-pm, x86, Rafael Wysocki, Russell King, linux-kernel,
Ingo Molnar, Borislav Petkov, H. Peter Anvin, sparclinux,
Paolo Bonzini, Thomas Gleixner, David S. Miller,
linux-arm-kernel
On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 10:22:23AM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/tsc.c b/arch/x86/kernel/tsc.c
> index 3fae23834069..b2fe665878f7 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/tsc.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/tsc.c
> @@ -958,10 +958,15 @@ static int time_cpufreq_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb, unsigned long val,
> struct cpufreq_freqs *freq = data;
> unsigned long *lpj;
>
> + if (WARN_ON_ONCE(cpumask_weight(freq->policy->related_cpus) != 1)) {
> + mark_tsc_unstable("cpufreq changes: related CPUs affected");
I suspect this is a big fat nop, but it won't hurt.
> + return 0;
> + }
> +
> lpj = &boot_cpu_data.loops_per_jiffy;
> #ifdef CONFIG_SMP
> if (!(freq->flags & CPUFREQ_CONST_LOOPS))
> - lpj = &cpu_data(freq->cpu).loops_per_jiffy;
> + lpj = &cpu_data(freq->policy->cpu).loops_per_jiffy;
> #endif
>
> if (!ref_freq) {
> @@ -977,7 +982,7 @@ static int time_cpufreq_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb, unsigned long val,
> if (!(freq->flags & CPUFREQ_CONST_LOOPS))
> mark_tsc_unstable("cpufreq changes");
>
> - set_cyc2ns_scale(tsc_khz, freq->cpu, rdtsc());
> + set_cyc2ns_scale(tsc_khz, freq->policy->cpu, rdtsc());
> }
>
> return 0;
Just wondering, since we say x86 cpufreq handlers will only have a
single CPU here,
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> index 65e4559eef2f..1ac8c710cccc 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> @@ -6649,10 +6649,8 @@ static void kvm_hyperv_tsc_notifier(void)
> }
> #endif
>
> -static int kvmclock_cpufreq_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb, unsigned long val,
> - void *data)
> +static void __kvmclock_cpufreq_notifier(struct cpufreq_freqs *freq, int cpu)
> {
> - struct cpufreq_freqs *freq = data;
> struct kvm *kvm;
> struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu;
> int i, send_ipi = 0;
> @@ -6696,17 +6694,12 @@ static int kvmclock_cpufreq_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb, unsigned long va
> *
> */
>
> - if (val == CPUFREQ_PRECHANGE && freq->old > freq->new)
> - return 0;
> - if (val == CPUFREQ_POSTCHANGE && freq->old < freq->new)
> - return 0;
> -
> - smp_call_function_single(freq->cpu, tsc_khz_changed, freq, 1);
> + smp_call_function_single(cpu, tsc_khz_changed, freq, 1);
>
> spin_lock(&kvm_lock);
> list_for_each_entry(kvm, &vm_list, vm_list) {
> kvm_for_each_vcpu(i, vcpu, kvm) {
> - if (vcpu->cpu != freq->cpu)
> + if (vcpu->cpu != cpu)
> continue;
> kvm_make_request(KVM_REQ_CLOCK_UPDATE, vcpu);
> if (vcpu->cpu != smp_processor_id())
> @@ -6728,8 +6721,24 @@ static int kvmclock_cpufreq_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb, unsigned long va
> * guest context is entered kvmclock will be updated,
> * so the guest will not see stale values.
> */
> - smp_call_function_single(freq->cpu, tsc_khz_changed, freq, 1);
> + smp_call_function_single(cpu, tsc_khz_changed, freq, 1);
> }
> +}
> +
> +static int kvmclock_cpufreq_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb, unsigned long val,
> + void *data)
> +{
> + struct cpufreq_freqs *freq = data;
> + int cpu;
> +
> + if (val == CPUFREQ_PRECHANGE && freq->old > freq->new)
> + return 0;
> + if (val == CPUFREQ_POSTCHANGE && freq->old < freq->new)
> + return 0;
> +
> + for_each_cpu(cpu, freq->policy->cpus)
> + __kvmclock_cpufreq_notifier(freq, cpu);
> +
> return 0;
> }
>
Then why to we pretend otherwise here?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH V3] cpufreq: Call transition notifier only once for each policy
2019-03-21 11:45 ` Peter Zijlstra
(?)
@ 2019-03-22 6:19 ` Viresh Kumar
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: Viresh Kumar @ 2019-03-22 6:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Peter Zijlstra
Cc: Rafael Wysocki, Russell King, David S. Miller, Thomas Gleixner,
Ingo Molnar, Borislav Petkov, H. Peter Anvin, x86, Paolo Bonzini,
Radim Krčmář,
linux-pm, Vincent Guittot, linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel,
sparclinux, kvm
On 21-03-19, 12:45, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 10:22:23AM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/tsc.c b/arch/x86/kernel/tsc.c
> > index 3fae23834069..b2fe665878f7 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/tsc.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/tsc.c
> > @@ -958,10 +958,15 @@ static int time_cpufreq_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb, unsigned long val,
> > struct cpufreq_freqs *freq = data;
> > unsigned long *lpj;
> >
> > + if (WARN_ON_ONCE(cpumask_weight(freq->policy->related_cpus) != 1)) {
> > + mark_tsc_unstable("cpufreq changes: related CPUs affected");
>
> I suspect this is a big fat nop, but it won't hurt.
>
> > + return 0;
> > + }
> > +
> > lpj = &boot_cpu_data.loops_per_jiffy;
> > #ifdef CONFIG_SMP
> > if (!(freq->flags & CPUFREQ_CONST_LOOPS))
> > - lpj = &cpu_data(freq->cpu).loops_per_jiffy;
> > + lpj = &cpu_data(freq->policy->cpu).loops_per_jiffy;
> > #endif
> >
> > if (!ref_freq) {
> > @@ -977,7 +982,7 @@ static int time_cpufreq_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb, unsigned long val,
> > if (!(freq->flags & CPUFREQ_CONST_LOOPS))
> > mark_tsc_unstable("cpufreq changes");
> >
> > - set_cyc2ns_scale(tsc_khz, freq->cpu, rdtsc());
> > + set_cyc2ns_scale(tsc_khz, freq->policy->cpu, rdtsc());
> > }
> >
> > return 0;
>
> Just wondering, since we say x86 cpufreq handlers will only have a
> single CPU here,
>
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> > index 65e4559eef2f..1ac8c710cccc 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> > @@ -6649,10 +6649,8 @@ static void kvm_hyperv_tsc_notifier(void)
> > }
> > #endif
> >
> > -static int kvmclock_cpufreq_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb, unsigned long val,
> > - void *data)
> > +static void __kvmclock_cpufreq_notifier(struct cpufreq_freqs *freq, int cpu)
> > {
> > - struct cpufreq_freqs *freq = data;
> > struct kvm *kvm;
> > struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu;
> > int i, send_ipi = 0;
> > @@ -6696,17 +6694,12 @@ static int kvmclock_cpufreq_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb, unsigned long va
> > *
> > */
> >
> > - if (val == CPUFREQ_PRECHANGE && freq->old > freq->new)
> > - return 0;
> > - if (val == CPUFREQ_POSTCHANGE && freq->old < freq->new)
> > - return 0;
> > -
> > - smp_call_function_single(freq->cpu, tsc_khz_changed, freq, 1);
> > + smp_call_function_single(cpu, tsc_khz_changed, freq, 1);
> >
> > spin_lock(&kvm_lock);
> > list_for_each_entry(kvm, &vm_list, vm_list) {
> > kvm_for_each_vcpu(i, vcpu, kvm) {
> > - if (vcpu->cpu != freq->cpu)
> > + if (vcpu->cpu != cpu)
> > continue;
> > kvm_make_request(KVM_REQ_CLOCK_UPDATE, vcpu);
> > if (vcpu->cpu != smp_processor_id())
> > @@ -6728,8 +6721,24 @@ static int kvmclock_cpufreq_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb, unsigned long va
> > * guest context is entered kvmclock will be updated,
> > * so the guest will not see stale values.
> > */
> > - smp_call_function_single(freq->cpu, tsc_khz_changed, freq, 1);
> > + smp_call_function_single(cpu, tsc_khz_changed, freq, 1);
> > }
> > +}
> > +
> > +static int kvmclock_cpufreq_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb, unsigned long val,
> > + void *data)
> > +{
> > + struct cpufreq_freqs *freq = data;
> > + int cpu;
> > +
> > + if (val == CPUFREQ_PRECHANGE && freq->old > freq->new)
> > + return 0;
> > + if (val == CPUFREQ_POSTCHANGE && freq->old < freq->new)
> > + return 0;
> > +
> > + for_each_cpu(cpu, freq->policy->cpus)
> > + __kvmclock_cpufreq_notifier(freq, cpu);
> > +
> > return 0;
> > }
> >
>
> Then why to we pretend otherwise here?
My intention was to not add any bug here because of lack of my
knowledge of the architecture in question and so I tried to be safe.
If you guys think the behavior should be same here as of the tsc, then
we can add similar checks here.
--
viresh
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH V3] cpufreq: Call transition notifier only once for each policy
@ 2019-03-22 6:19 ` Viresh Kumar
0 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: Viresh Kumar @ 2019-03-22 6:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Peter Zijlstra
Cc: Rafael Wysocki, Russell King, David S. Miller, Thomas Gleixner,
Ingo Molnar, Borislav Petkov, H. Peter Anvin, x86, Paolo Bonzini,
Radim Krčmář,
linux-pm, Vincent Guittot, linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel,
sparclinux, kvm
On 21-03-19, 12:45, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 10:22:23AM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/tsc.c b/arch/x86/kernel/tsc.c
> > index 3fae23834069..b2fe665878f7 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/tsc.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/tsc.c
> > @@ -958,10 +958,15 @@ static int time_cpufreq_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb, unsigned long val,
> > struct cpufreq_freqs *freq = data;
> > unsigned long *lpj;
> >
> > + if (WARN_ON_ONCE(cpumask_weight(freq->policy->related_cpus) != 1)) {
> > + mark_tsc_unstable("cpufreq changes: related CPUs affected");
>
> I suspect this is a big fat nop, but it won't hurt.
>
> > + return 0;
> > + }
> > +
> > lpj = &boot_cpu_data.loops_per_jiffy;
> > #ifdef CONFIG_SMP
> > if (!(freq->flags & CPUFREQ_CONST_LOOPS))
> > - lpj = &cpu_data(freq->cpu).loops_per_jiffy;
> > + lpj = &cpu_data(freq->policy->cpu).loops_per_jiffy;
> > #endif
> >
> > if (!ref_freq) {
> > @@ -977,7 +982,7 @@ static int time_cpufreq_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb, unsigned long val,
> > if (!(freq->flags & CPUFREQ_CONST_LOOPS))
> > mark_tsc_unstable("cpufreq changes");
> >
> > - set_cyc2ns_scale(tsc_khz, freq->cpu, rdtsc());
> > + set_cyc2ns_scale(tsc_khz, freq->policy->cpu, rdtsc());
> > }
> >
> > return 0;
>
> Just wondering, since we say x86 cpufreq handlers will only have a
> single CPU here,
>
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> > index 65e4559eef2f..1ac8c710cccc 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> > @@ -6649,10 +6649,8 @@ static void kvm_hyperv_tsc_notifier(void)
> > }
> > #endif
> >
> > -static int kvmclock_cpufreq_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb, unsigned long val,
> > - void *data)
> > +static void __kvmclock_cpufreq_notifier(struct cpufreq_freqs *freq, int cpu)
> > {
> > - struct cpufreq_freqs *freq = data;
> > struct kvm *kvm;
> > struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu;
> > int i, send_ipi = 0;
> > @@ -6696,17 +6694,12 @@ static int kvmclock_cpufreq_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb, unsigned long va
> > *
> > */
> >
> > - if (val = CPUFREQ_PRECHANGE && freq->old > freq->new)
> > - return 0;
> > - if (val = CPUFREQ_POSTCHANGE && freq->old < freq->new)
> > - return 0;
> > -
> > - smp_call_function_single(freq->cpu, tsc_khz_changed, freq, 1);
> > + smp_call_function_single(cpu, tsc_khz_changed, freq, 1);
> >
> > spin_lock(&kvm_lock);
> > list_for_each_entry(kvm, &vm_list, vm_list) {
> > kvm_for_each_vcpu(i, vcpu, kvm) {
> > - if (vcpu->cpu != freq->cpu)
> > + if (vcpu->cpu != cpu)
> > continue;
> > kvm_make_request(KVM_REQ_CLOCK_UPDATE, vcpu);
> > if (vcpu->cpu != smp_processor_id())
> > @@ -6728,8 +6721,24 @@ static int kvmclock_cpufreq_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb, unsigned long va
> > * guest context is entered kvmclock will be updated,
> > * so the guest will not see stale values.
> > */
> > - smp_call_function_single(freq->cpu, tsc_khz_changed, freq, 1);
> > + smp_call_function_single(cpu, tsc_khz_changed, freq, 1);
> > }
> > +}
> > +
> > +static int kvmclock_cpufreq_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb, unsigned long val,
> > + void *data)
> > +{
> > + struct cpufreq_freqs *freq = data;
> > + int cpu;
> > +
> > + if (val = CPUFREQ_PRECHANGE && freq->old > freq->new)
> > + return 0;
> > + if (val = CPUFREQ_POSTCHANGE && freq->old < freq->new)
> > + return 0;
> > +
> > + for_each_cpu(cpu, freq->policy->cpus)
> > + __kvmclock_cpufreq_notifier(freq, cpu);
> > +
> > return 0;
> > }
> >
>
> Then why to we pretend otherwise here?
My intention was to not add any bug here because of lack of my
knowledge of the architecture in question and so I tried to be safe.
If you guys think the behavior should be same here as of the tsc, then
we can add similar checks here.
--
viresh
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH V3] cpufreq: Call transition notifier only once for each policy
@ 2019-03-22 6:19 ` Viresh Kumar
0 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: Viresh Kumar @ 2019-03-22 6:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Peter Zijlstra
Cc: Vincent Guittot, kvm, Radim Krčmář,
linux-pm, x86, Rafael Wysocki, Russell King, linux-kernel,
Ingo Molnar, Borislav Petkov, H. Peter Anvin, sparclinux,
Paolo Bonzini, Thomas Gleixner, David S. Miller,
linux-arm-kernel
On 21-03-19, 12:45, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 10:22:23AM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/tsc.c b/arch/x86/kernel/tsc.c
> > index 3fae23834069..b2fe665878f7 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/tsc.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/tsc.c
> > @@ -958,10 +958,15 @@ static int time_cpufreq_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb, unsigned long val,
> > struct cpufreq_freqs *freq = data;
> > unsigned long *lpj;
> >
> > + if (WARN_ON_ONCE(cpumask_weight(freq->policy->related_cpus) != 1)) {
> > + mark_tsc_unstable("cpufreq changes: related CPUs affected");
>
> I suspect this is a big fat nop, but it won't hurt.
>
> > + return 0;
> > + }
> > +
> > lpj = &boot_cpu_data.loops_per_jiffy;
> > #ifdef CONFIG_SMP
> > if (!(freq->flags & CPUFREQ_CONST_LOOPS))
> > - lpj = &cpu_data(freq->cpu).loops_per_jiffy;
> > + lpj = &cpu_data(freq->policy->cpu).loops_per_jiffy;
> > #endif
> >
> > if (!ref_freq) {
> > @@ -977,7 +982,7 @@ static int time_cpufreq_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb, unsigned long val,
> > if (!(freq->flags & CPUFREQ_CONST_LOOPS))
> > mark_tsc_unstable("cpufreq changes");
> >
> > - set_cyc2ns_scale(tsc_khz, freq->cpu, rdtsc());
> > + set_cyc2ns_scale(tsc_khz, freq->policy->cpu, rdtsc());
> > }
> >
> > return 0;
>
> Just wondering, since we say x86 cpufreq handlers will only have a
> single CPU here,
>
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> > index 65e4559eef2f..1ac8c710cccc 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> > @@ -6649,10 +6649,8 @@ static void kvm_hyperv_tsc_notifier(void)
> > }
> > #endif
> >
> > -static int kvmclock_cpufreq_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb, unsigned long val,
> > - void *data)
> > +static void __kvmclock_cpufreq_notifier(struct cpufreq_freqs *freq, int cpu)
> > {
> > - struct cpufreq_freqs *freq = data;
> > struct kvm *kvm;
> > struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu;
> > int i, send_ipi = 0;
> > @@ -6696,17 +6694,12 @@ static int kvmclock_cpufreq_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb, unsigned long va
> > *
> > */
> >
> > - if (val == CPUFREQ_PRECHANGE && freq->old > freq->new)
> > - return 0;
> > - if (val == CPUFREQ_POSTCHANGE && freq->old < freq->new)
> > - return 0;
> > -
> > - smp_call_function_single(freq->cpu, tsc_khz_changed, freq, 1);
> > + smp_call_function_single(cpu, tsc_khz_changed, freq, 1);
> >
> > spin_lock(&kvm_lock);
> > list_for_each_entry(kvm, &vm_list, vm_list) {
> > kvm_for_each_vcpu(i, vcpu, kvm) {
> > - if (vcpu->cpu != freq->cpu)
> > + if (vcpu->cpu != cpu)
> > continue;
> > kvm_make_request(KVM_REQ_CLOCK_UPDATE, vcpu);
> > if (vcpu->cpu != smp_processor_id())
> > @@ -6728,8 +6721,24 @@ static int kvmclock_cpufreq_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb, unsigned long va
> > * guest context is entered kvmclock will be updated,
> > * so the guest will not see stale values.
> > */
> > - smp_call_function_single(freq->cpu, tsc_khz_changed, freq, 1);
> > + smp_call_function_single(cpu, tsc_khz_changed, freq, 1);
> > }
> > +}
> > +
> > +static int kvmclock_cpufreq_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb, unsigned long val,
> > + void *data)
> > +{
> > + struct cpufreq_freqs *freq = data;
> > + int cpu;
> > +
> > + if (val == CPUFREQ_PRECHANGE && freq->old > freq->new)
> > + return 0;
> > + if (val == CPUFREQ_POSTCHANGE && freq->old < freq->new)
> > + return 0;
> > +
> > + for_each_cpu(cpu, freq->policy->cpus)
> > + __kvmclock_cpufreq_notifier(freq, cpu);
> > +
> > return 0;
> > }
> >
>
> Then why to we pretend otherwise here?
My intention was to not add any bug here because of lack of my
knowledge of the architecture in question and so I tried to be safe.
If you guys think the behavior should be same here as of the tsc, then
we can add similar checks here.
--
viresh
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH V3] cpufreq: Call transition notifier only once for each policy
2019-03-22 6:19 ` Viresh Kumar
(?)
@ 2019-04-24 6:47 ` Viresh Kumar
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: Viresh Kumar @ 2019-04-24 6:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Peter Zijlstra
Cc: Rafael Wysocki, Russell King, David S. Miller, Thomas Gleixner,
Ingo Molnar, Borislav Petkov, H. Peter Anvin, x86, Paolo Bonzini,
Radim Krčmář,
linux-pm, Vincent Guittot, linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel,
sparclinux, kvm
On 22-03-19, 11:49, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 21-03-19, 12:45, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 10:22:23AM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> > > index 65e4559eef2f..1ac8c710cccc 100644
> > > --- a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> > > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> > > @@ -6649,10 +6649,8 @@ static void kvm_hyperv_tsc_notifier(void)
> > > }
> > > #endif
> > >
> > > -static int kvmclock_cpufreq_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb, unsigned long val,
> > > - void *data)
> > > +static void __kvmclock_cpufreq_notifier(struct cpufreq_freqs *freq, int cpu)
> > > {
> > > - struct cpufreq_freqs *freq = data;
> > > struct kvm *kvm;
> > > struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu;
> > > int i, send_ipi = 0;
> > > @@ -6696,17 +6694,12 @@ static int kvmclock_cpufreq_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb, unsigned long va
> > > *
> > > */
> > >
> > > - if (val == CPUFREQ_PRECHANGE && freq->old > freq->new)
> > > - return 0;
> > > - if (val == CPUFREQ_POSTCHANGE && freq->old < freq->new)
> > > - return 0;
> > > -
> > > - smp_call_function_single(freq->cpu, tsc_khz_changed, freq, 1);
> > > + smp_call_function_single(cpu, tsc_khz_changed, freq, 1);
> > >
> > > spin_lock(&kvm_lock);
> > > list_for_each_entry(kvm, &vm_list, vm_list) {
> > > kvm_for_each_vcpu(i, vcpu, kvm) {
> > > - if (vcpu->cpu != freq->cpu)
> > > + if (vcpu->cpu != cpu)
> > > continue;
> > > kvm_make_request(KVM_REQ_CLOCK_UPDATE, vcpu);
> > > if (vcpu->cpu != smp_processor_id())
> > > @@ -6728,8 +6721,24 @@ static int kvmclock_cpufreq_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb, unsigned long va
> > > * guest context is entered kvmclock will be updated,
> > > * so the guest will not see stale values.
> > > */
> > > - smp_call_function_single(freq->cpu, tsc_khz_changed, freq, 1);
> > > + smp_call_function_single(cpu, tsc_khz_changed, freq, 1);
> > > }
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +static int kvmclock_cpufreq_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb, unsigned long val,
> > > + void *data)
> > > +{
> > > + struct cpufreq_freqs *freq = data;
> > > + int cpu;
> > > +
> > > + if (val == CPUFREQ_PRECHANGE && freq->old > freq->new)
> > > + return 0;
> > > + if (val == CPUFREQ_POSTCHANGE && freq->old < freq->new)
> > > + return 0;
> > > +
> > > + for_each_cpu(cpu, freq->policy->cpus)
> > > + __kvmclock_cpufreq_notifier(freq, cpu);
> > > +
> > > return 0;
> > > }
> > >
> >
> > Then why to we pretend otherwise here?
>
> My intention was to not add any bug here because of lack of my
> knowledge of the architecture in question and so I tried to be safe.
>
> If you guys think the behavior should be same here as of the tsc, then
> we can add similar checks here.
I am rebasing this patch over Rafael's patch [1] and wondering if I
should change anything here.
--
viresh
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/38900622.ao2n2t5aPS@kreacher/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH V3] cpufreq: Call transition notifier only once for each policy
@ 2019-04-24 6:47 ` Viresh Kumar
0 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: Viresh Kumar @ 2019-04-24 6:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Peter Zijlstra
Cc: Rafael Wysocki, Russell King, David S. Miller, Thomas Gleixner,
Ingo Molnar, Borislav Petkov, H. Peter Anvin, x86, Paolo Bonzini,
Radim Krčmář,
linux-pm, Vincent Guittot, linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel,
sparclinux, kvm
On 22-03-19, 11:49, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 21-03-19, 12:45, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 10:22:23AM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> > > index 65e4559eef2f..1ac8c710cccc 100644
> > > --- a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> > > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> > > @@ -6649,10 +6649,8 @@ static void kvm_hyperv_tsc_notifier(void)
> > > }
> > > #endif
> > >
> > > -static int kvmclock_cpufreq_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb, unsigned long val,
> > > - void *data)
> > > +static void __kvmclock_cpufreq_notifier(struct cpufreq_freqs *freq, int cpu)
> > > {
> > > - struct cpufreq_freqs *freq = data;
> > > struct kvm *kvm;
> > > struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu;
> > > int i, send_ipi = 0;
> > > @@ -6696,17 +6694,12 @@ static int kvmclock_cpufreq_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb, unsigned long va
> > > *
> > > */
> > >
> > > - if (val = CPUFREQ_PRECHANGE && freq->old > freq->new)
> > > - return 0;
> > > - if (val = CPUFREQ_POSTCHANGE && freq->old < freq->new)
> > > - return 0;
> > > -
> > > - smp_call_function_single(freq->cpu, tsc_khz_changed, freq, 1);
> > > + smp_call_function_single(cpu, tsc_khz_changed, freq, 1);
> > >
> > > spin_lock(&kvm_lock);
> > > list_for_each_entry(kvm, &vm_list, vm_list) {
> > > kvm_for_each_vcpu(i, vcpu, kvm) {
> > > - if (vcpu->cpu != freq->cpu)
> > > + if (vcpu->cpu != cpu)
> > > continue;
> > > kvm_make_request(KVM_REQ_CLOCK_UPDATE, vcpu);
> > > if (vcpu->cpu != smp_processor_id())
> > > @@ -6728,8 +6721,24 @@ static int kvmclock_cpufreq_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb, unsigned long va
> > > * guest context is entered kvmclock will be updated,
> > > * so the guest will not see stale values.
> > > */
> > > - smp_call_function_single(freq->cpu, tsc_khz_changed, freq, 1);
> > > + smp_call_function_single(cpu, tsc_khz_changed, freq, 1);
> > > }
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +static int kvmclock_cpufreq_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb, unsigned long val,
> > > + void *data)
> > > +{
> > > + struct cpufreq_freqs *freq = data;
> > > + int cpu;
> > > +
> > > + if (val = CPUFREQ_PRECHANGE && freq->old > freq->new)
> > > + return 0;
> > > + if (val = CPUFREQ_POSTCHANGE && freq->old < freq->new)
> > > + return 0;
> > > +
> > > + for_each_cpu(cpu, freq->policy->cpus)
> > > + __kvmclock_cpufreq_notifier(freq, cpu);
> > > +
> > > return 0;
> > > }
> > >
> >
> > Then why to we pretend otherwise here?
>
> My intention was to not add any bug here because of lack of my
> knowledge of the architecture in question and so I tried to be safe.
>
> If you guys think the behavior should be same here as of the tsc, then
> we can add similar checks here.
I am rebasing this patch over Rafael's patch [1] and wondering if I
should change anything here.
--
viresh
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/38900622.ao2n2t5aPS@kreacher/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH V3] cpufreq: Call transition notifier only once for each policy
@ 2019-04-24 6:47 ` Viresh Kumar
0 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: Viresh Kumar @ 2019-04-24 6:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Peter Zijlstra
Cc: Vincent Guittot, kvm, Radim Krčmář,
linux-pm, x86, Rafael Wysocki, Russell King, linux-kernel,
Ingo Molnar, Borislav Petkov, H. Peter Anvin, sparclinux,
Paolo Bonzini, Thomas Gleixner, David S. Miller,
linux-arm-kernel
On 22-03-19, 11:49, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 21-03-19, 12:45, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 10:22:23AM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> > > index 65e4559eef2f..1ac8c710cccc 100644
> > > --- a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> > > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> > > @@ -6649,10 +6649,8 @@ static void kvm_hyperv_tsc_notifier(void)
> > > }
> > > #endif
> > >
> > > -static int kvmclock_cpufreq_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb, unsigned long val,
> > > - void *data)
> > > +static void __kvmclock_cpufreq_notifier(struct cpufreq_freqs *freq, int cpu)
> > > {
> > > - struct cpufreq_freqs *freq = data;
> > > struct kvm *kvm;
> > > struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu;
> > > int i, send_ipi = 0;
> > > @@ -6696,17 +6694,12 @@ static int kvmclock_cpufreq_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb, unsigned long va
> > > *
> > > */
> > >
> > > - if (val == CPUFREQ_PRECHANGE && freq->old > freq->new)
> > > - return 0;
> > > - if (val == CPUFREQ_POSTCHANGE && freq->old < freq->new)
> > > - return 0;
> > > -
> > > - smp_call_function_single(freq->cpu, tsc_khz_changed, freq, 1);
> > > + smp_call_function_single(cpu, tsc_khz_changed, freq, 1);
> > >
> > > spin_lock(&kvm_lock);
> > > list_for_each_entry(kvm, &vm_list, vm_list) {
> > > kvm_for_each_vcpu(i, vcpu, kvm) {
> > > - if (vcpu->cpu != freq->cpu)
> > > + if (vcpu->cpu != cpu)
> > > continue;
> > > kvm_make_request(KVM_REQ_CLOCK_UPDATE, vcpu);
> > > if (vcpu->cpu != smp_processor_id())
> > > @@ -6728,8 +6721,24 @@ static int kvmclock_cpufreq_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb, unsigned long va
> > > * guest context is entered kvmclock will be updated,
> > > * so the guest will not see stale values.
> > > */
> > > - smp_call_function_single(freq->cpu, tsc_khz_changed, freq, 1);
> > > + smp_call_function_single(cpu, tsc_khz_changed, freq, 1);
> > > }
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +static int kvmclock_cpufreq_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb, unsigned long val,
> > > + void *data)
> > > +{
> > > + struct cpufreq_freqs *freq = data;
> > > + int cpu;
> > > +
> > > + if (val == CPUFREQ_PRECHANGE && freq->old > freq->new)
> > > + return 0;
> > > + if (val == CPUFREQ_POSTCHANGE && freq->old < freq->new)
> > > + return 0;
> > > +
> > > + for_each_cpu(cpu, freq->policy->cpus)
> > > + __kvmclock_cpufreq_notifier(freq, cpu);
> > > +
> > > return 0;
> > > }
> > >
> >
> > Then why to we pretend otherwise here?
>
> My intention was to not add any bug here because of lack of my
> knowledge of the architecture in question and so I tried to be safe.
>
> If you guys think the behavior should be same here as of the tsc, then
> we can add similar checks here.
I am rebasing this patch over Rafael's patch [1] and wondering if I
should change anything here.
--
viresh
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/38900622.ao2n2t5aPS@kreacher/
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH V3] cpufreq: Call transition notifier only once for each policy
2019-04-24 6:47 ` Viresh Kumar
(?)
@ 2019-04-24 7:26 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: Rafael J. Wysocki @ 2019-04-24 7:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Viresh Kumar
Cc: Peter Zijlstra, Rafael Wysocki, Russell King, David S. Miller,
Thomas Gleixner, Ingo Molnar, Borislav Petkov, H. Peter Anvin,
the arch/x86 maintainers, Paolo Bonzini,
Radim Krčmář,
Linux PM, Vincent Guittot, Linux ARM, Linux Kernel Mailing List,
sparclinux, kvm
On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 8:48 AM Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> On 22-03-19, 11:49, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > On 21-03-19, 12:45, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 10:22:23AM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
>
> > > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> > > > index 65e4559eef2f..1ac8c710cccc 100644
> > > > --- a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> > > > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> > > > @@ -6649,10 +6649,8 @@ static void kvm_hyperv_tsc_notifier(void)
> > > > }
> > > > #endif
> > > >
> > > > -static int kvmclock_cpufreq_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb, unsigned long val,
> > > > - void *data)
> > > > +static void __kvmclock_cpufreq_notifier(struct cpufreq_freqs *freq, int cpu)
> > > > {
> > > > - struct cpufreq_freqs *freq = data;
> > > > struct kvm *kvm;
> > > > struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu;
> > > > int i, send_ipi = 0;
> > > > @@ -6696,17 +6694,12 @@ static int kvmclock_cpufreq_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb, unsigned long va
> > > > *
> > > > */
> > > >
> > > > - if (val == CPUFREQ_PRECHANGE && freq->old > freq->new)
> > > > - return 0;
> > > > - if (val == CPUFREQ_POSTCHANGE && freq->old < freq->new)
> > > > - return 0;
> > > > -
> > > > - smp_call_function_single(freq->cpu, tsc_khz_changed, freq, 1);
> > > > + smp_call_function_single(cpu, tsc_khz_changed, freq, 1);
> > > >
> > > > spin_lock(&kvm_lock);
> > > > list_for_each_entry(kvm, &vm_list, vm_list) {
> > > > kvm_for_each_vcpu(i, vcpu, kvm) {
> > > > - if (vcpu->cpu != freq->cpu)
> > > > + if (vcpu->cpu != cpu)
> > > > continue;
> > > > kvm_make_request(KVM_REQ_CLOCK_UPDATE, vcpu);
> > > > if (vcpu->cpu != smp_processor_id())
> > > > @@ -6728,8 +6721,24 @@ static int kvmclock_cpufreq_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb, unsigned long va
> > > > * guest context is entered kvmclock will be updated,
> > > > * so the guest will not see stale values.
> > > > */
> > > > - smp_call_function_single(freq->cpu, tsc_khz_changed, freq, 1);
> > > > + smp_call_function_single(cpu, tsc_khz_changed, freq, 1);
> > > > }
> > > > +}
> > > > +
> > > > +static int kvmclock_cpufreq_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb, unsigned long val,
> > > > + void *data)
> > > > +{
> > > > + struct cpufreq_freqs *freq = data;
> > > > + int cpu;
> > > > +
> > > > + if (val == CPUFREQ_PRECHANGE && freq->old > freq->new)
> > > > + return 0;
> > > > + if (val == CPUFREQ_POSTCHANGE && freq->old < freq->new)
> > > > + return 0;
> > > > +
> > > > + for_each_cpu(cpu, freq->policy->cpus)
> > > > + __kvmclock_cpufreq_notifier(freq, cpu);
> > > > +
> > > > return 0;
> > > > }
> > > >
> > >
> > > Then why to we pretend otherwise here?
> >
> > My intention was to not add any bug here because of lack of my
> > knowledge of the architecture in question and so I tried to be safe.
> >
> > If you guys think the behavior should be same here as of the tsc, then
> > we can add similar checks here.
>
> I am rebasing this patch over Rafael's patch [1] and wondering if I
> should change anything here.
I guess please repost when my patch makes it into linux-next.
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/38900622.ao2n2t5aPS@kreacher/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH V3] cpufreq: Call transition notifier only once for each policy
@ 2019-04-24 7:26 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
0 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: Rafael J. Wysocki @ 2019-04-24 7:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Viresh Kumar
Cc: Vincent Guittot, kvm, Radim Krčmář,
Peter Zijlstra, Linux PM, the arch/x86 maintainers,
Rafael Wysocki, Russell King, Linux Kernel Mailing List,
Ingo Molnar, Borislav Petkov, H. Peter Anvin, sparclinux,
Paolo Bonzini, Thomas Gleixner, David S. Miller, Linux ARM
On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 8:48 AM Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> On 22-03-19, 11:49, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > On 21-03-19, 12:45, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 10:22:23AM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
>
> > > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> > > > index 65e4559eef2f..1ac8c710cccc 100644
> > > > --- a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> > > > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> > > > @@ -6649,10 +6649,8 @@ static void kvm_hyperv_tsc_notifier(void)
> > > > }
> > > > #endif
> > > >
> > > > -static int kvmclock_cpufreq_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb, unsigned long val,
> > > > - void *data)
> > > > +static void __kvmclock_cpufreq_notifier(struct cpufreq_freqs *freq, int cpu)
> > > > {
> > > > - struct cpufreq_freqs *freq = data;
> > > > struct kvm *kvm;
> > > > struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu;
> > > > int i, send_ipi = 0;
> > > > @@ -6696,17 +6694,12 @@ static int kvmclock_cpufreq_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb, unsigned long va
> > > > *
> > > > */
> > > >
> > > > - if (val == CPUFREQ_PRECHANGE && freq->old > freq->new)
> > > > - return 0;
> > > > - if (val == CPUFREQ_POSTCHANGE && freq->old < freq->new)
> > > > - return 0;
> > > > -
> > > > - smp_call_function_single(freq->cpu, tsc_khz_changed, freq, 1);
> > > > + smp_call_function_single(cpu, tsc_khz_changed, freq, 1);
> > > >
> > > > spin_lock(&kvm_lock);
> > > > list_for_each_entry(kvm, &vm_list, vm_list) {
> > > > kvm_for_each_vcpu(i, vcpu, kvm) {
> > > > - if (vcpu->cpu != freq->cpu)
> > > > + if (vcpu->cpu != cpu)
> > > > continue;
> > > > kvm_make_request(KVM_REQ_CLOCK_UPDATE, vcpu);
> > > > if (vcpu->cpu != smp_processor_id())
> > > > @@ -6728,8 +6721,24 @@ static int kvmclock_cpufreq_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb, unsigned long va
> > > > * guest context is entered kvmclock will be updated,
> > > > * so the guest will not see stale values.
> > > > */
> > > > - smp_call_function_single(freq->cpu, tsc_khz_changed, freq, 1);
> > > > + smp_call_function_single(cpu, tsc_khz_changed, freq, 1);
> > > > }
> > > > +}
> > > > +
> > > > +static int kvmclock_cpufreq_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb, unsigned long val,
> > > > + void *data)
> > > > +{
> > > > + struct cpufreq_freqs *freq = data;
> > > > + int cpu;
> > > > +
> > > > + if (val == CPUFREQ_PRECHANGE && freq->old > freq->new)
> > > > + return 0;
> > > > + if (val == CPUFREQ_POSTCHANGE && freq->old < freq->new)
> > > > + return 0;
> > > > +
> > > > + for_each_cpu(cpu, freq->policy->cpus)
> > > > + __kvmclock_cpufreq_notifier(freq, cpu);
> > > > +
> > > > return 0;
> > > > }
> > > >
> > >
> > > Then why to we pretend otherwise here?
> >
> > My intention was to not add any bug here because of lack of my
> > knowledge of the architecture in question and so I tried to be safe.
> >
> > If you guys think the behavior should be same here as of the tsc, then
> > we can add similar checks here.
>
> I am rebasing this patch over Rafael's patch [1] and wondering if I
> should change anything here.
I guess please repost when my patch makes it into linux-next.
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/38900622.ao2n2t5aPS@kreacher/
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH V3] cpufreq: Call transition notifier only once for each policy
@ 2019-04-24 7:26 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
0 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: Rafael J. Wysocki @ 2019-04-24 7:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Viresh Kumar
Cc: Peter Zijlstra, Rafael Wysocki, Russell King, David S. Miller,
Thomas Gleixner, Ingo Molnar, Borislav Petkov, H. Peter Anvin,
the arch/x86 maintainers, Paolo Bonzini,
Radim Krčmář,
Linux PM, Vincent Guittot, Linux ARM, Linux Kernel Mailing List,
sparclinux, kvm
On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 8:48 AM Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> On 22-03-19, 11:49, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > On 21-03-19, 12:45, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 10:22:23AM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
>
> > > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> > > > index 65e4559eef2f..1ac8c710cccc 100644
> > > > --- a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> > > > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> > > > @@ -6649,10 +6649,8 @@ static void kvm_hyperv_tsc_notifier(void)
> > > > }
> > > > #endif
> > > >
> > > > -static int kvmclock_cpufreq_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb, unsigned long val,
> > > > - void *data)
> > > > +static void __kvmclock_cpufreq_notifier(struct cpufreq_freqs *freq, int cpu)
> > > > {
> > > > - struct cpufreq_freqs *freq = data;
> > > > struct kvm *kvm;
> > > > struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu;
> > > > int i, send_ipi = 0;
> > > > @@ -6696,17 +6694,12 @@ static int kvmclock_cpufreq_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb, unsigned long va
> > > > *
> > > > */
> > > >
> > > > - if (val = CPUFREQ_PRECHANGE && freq->old > freq->new)
> > > > - return 0;
> > > > - if (val = CPUFREQ_POSTCHANGE && freq->old < freq->new)
> > > > - return 0;
> > > > -
> > > > - smp_call_function_single(freq->cpu, tsc_khz_changed, freq, 1);
> > > > + smp_call_function_single(cpu, tsc_khz_changed, freq, 1);
> > > >
> > > > spin_lock(&kvm_lock);
> > > > list_for_each_entry(kvm, &vm_list, vm_list) {
> > > > kvm_for_each_vcpu(i, vcpu, kvm) {
> > > > - if (vcpu->cpu != freq->cpu)
> > > > + if (vcpu->cpu != cpu)
> > > > continue;
> > > > kvm_make_request(KVM_REQ_CLOCK_UPDATE, vcpu);
> > > > if (vcpu->cpu != smp_processor_id())
> > > > @@ -6728,8 +6721,24 @@ static int kvmclock_cpufreq_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb, unsigned long va
> > > > * guest context is entered kvmclock will be updated,
> > > > * so the guest will not see stale values.
> > > > */
> > > > - smp_call_function_single(freq->cpu, tsc_khz_changed, freq, 1);
> > > > + smp_call_function_single(cpu, tsc_khz_changed, freq, 1);
> > > > }
> > > > +}
> > > > +
> > > > +static int kvmclock_cpufreq_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb, unsigned long val,
> > > > + void *data)
> > > > +{
> > > > + struct cpufreq_freqs *freq = data;
> > > > + int cpu;
> > > > +
> > > > + if (val = CPUFREQ_PRECHANGE && freq->old > freq->new)
> > > > + return 0;
> > > > + if (val = CPUFREQ_POSTCHANGE && freq->old < freq->new)
> > > > + return 0;
> > > > +
> > > > + for_each_cpu(cpu, freq->policy->cpus)
> > > > + __kvmclock_cpufreq_notifier(freq, cpu);
> > > > +
> > > > return 0;
> > > > }
> > > >
> > >
> > > Then why to we pretend otherwise here?
> >
> > My intention was to not add any bug here because of lack of my
> > knowledge of the architecture in question and so I tried to be safe.
> >
> > If you guys think the behavior should be same here as of the tsc, then
> > we can add similar checks here.
>
> I am rebasing this patch over Rafael's patch [1] and wondering if I
> should change anything here.
I guess please repost when my patch makes it into linux-next.
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/38900622.ao2n2t5aPS@kreacher/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH V3] cpufreq: Call transition notifier only once for each policy
2019-03-20 4:52 ` Viresh Kumar
(?)
@ 2019-03-21 15:49 ` Thomas Gleixner
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: Thomas Gleixner @ 2019-03-21 15:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Viresh Kumar
Cc: Rafael Wysocki, Peter Zijlstra, Russell King, David S. Miller,
Ingo Molnar, Borislav Petkov, H. Peter Anvin, x86, Paolo Bonzini,
Radim Krčmář,
linux-pm, Vincent Guittot, linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel,
sparclinux, kvm
On Wed, 20 Mar 2019, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> Currently we call these notifiers once for each CPU of the policy->cpus
Nitpick: We call nothing. The notifiers are called ....
> cpumask. It would be more optimal if the notifier can be called only
> once and all the relevant information be provided to it. Out of the 23
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/tsc.c b/arch/x86/kernel/tsc.c
> index 3fae23834069..b2fe665878f7 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/tsc.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/tsc.c
> @@ -958,10 +958,15 @@ static int time_cpufreq_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb, unsigned long val,
> struct cpufreq_freqs *freq = data;
> unsigned long *lpj;
>
> + if (WARN_ON_ONCE(cpumask_weight(freq->policy->related_cpus) != 1)) {
> + mark_tsc_unstable("cpufreq changes: related CPUs affected");
> + return 0;
> + }
You might add a check which ensures that policy->cpu == smp_processor_id()
because if this is not the case ....
Thanks,
tglx
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH V3] cpufreq: Call transition notifier only once for each policy
@ 2019-03-21 15:49 ` Thomas Gleixner
0 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: Thomas Gleixner @ 2019-03-21 15:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Viresh Kumar
Cc: Vincent Guittot, kvm, Radim Krčmář,
Peter Zijlstra, linux-pm, x86, Rafael Wysocki, Russell King,
linux-kernel, Ingo Molnar, Borislav Petkov, H. Peter Anvin,
sparclinux, Paolo Bonzini, David S. Miller, linux-arm-kernel
On Wed, 20 Mar 2019, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> Currently we call these notifiers once for each CPU of the policy->cpus
Nitpick: We call nothing. The notifiers are called ....
> cpumask. It would be more optimal if the notifier can be called only
> once and all the relevant information be provided to it. Out of the 23
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/tsc.c b/arch/x86/kernel/tsc.c
> index 3fae23834069..b2fe665878f7 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/tsc.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/tsc.c
> @@ -958,10 +958,15 @@ static int time_cpufreq_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb, unsigned long val,
> struct cpufreq_freqs *freq = data;
> unsigned long *lpj;
>
> + if (WARN_ON_ONCE(cpumask_weight(freq->policy->related_cpus) != 1)) {
> + mark_tsc_unstable("cpufreq changes: related CPUs affected");
> + return 0;
> + }
You might add a check which ensures that policy->cpu == smp_processor_id()
because if this is not the case ....
Thanks,
tglx
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH V3] cpufreq: Call transition notifier only once for each policy
@ 2019-03-21 15:49 ` Thomas Gleixner
0 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: Thomas Gleixner @ 2019-03-21 15:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Viresh Kumar
Cc: Rafael Wysocki, Peter Zijlstra, Russell King, David S. Miller,
Ingo Molnar, Borislav Petkov, H. Peter Anvin, x86, Paolo Bonzini,
Radim Krčmář,
linux-pm, Vincent Guittot, linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel,
sparclinux, kvm
On Wed, 20 Mar 2019, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> Currently we call these notifiers once for each CPU of the policy->cpus
Nitpick: We call nothing. The notifiers are called ....
> cpumask. It would be more optimal if the notifier can be called only
> once and all the relevant information be provided to it. Out of the 23
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/tsc.c b/arch/x86/kernel/tsc.c
> index 3fae23834069..b2fe665878f7 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/tsc.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/tsc.c
> @@ -958,10 +958,15 @@ static int time_cpufreq_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb, unsigned long val,
> struct cpufreq_freqs *freq = data;
> unsigned long *lpj;
>
> + if (WARN_ON_ONCE(cpumask_weight(freq->policy->related_cpus) != 1)) {
> + mark_tsc_unstable("cpufreq changes: related CPUs affected");
> + return 0;
> + }
You might add a check which ensures that policy->cpu = smp_processor_id()
because if this is not the case ....
Thanks,
tglx
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH V3] cpufreq: Call transition notifier only once for each policy
2019-03-21 15:49 ` Thomas Gleixner
(?)
@ 2019-03-22 6:27 ` Viresh Kumar
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: Viresh Kumar @ 2019-03-22 6:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Thomas Gleixner
Cc: Rafael Wysocki, Peter Zijlstra, Russell King, David S. Miller,
Ingo Molnar, Borislav Petkov, H. Peter Anvin, x86, Paolo Bonzini,
Radim Krčmář,
linux-pm, Vincent Guittot, linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel,
sparclinux, kvm
On 21-03-19, 16:49, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Mar 2019, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/tsc.c b/arch/x86/kernel/tsc.c
> > index 3fae23834069..b2fe665878f7 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/tsc.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/tsc.c
> > @@ -958,10 +958,15 @@ static int time_cpufreq_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb, unsigned long val,
> > struct cpufreq_freqs *freq = data;
> > unsigned long *lpj;
> >
> > + if (WARN_ON_ONCE(cpumask_weight(freq->policy->related_cpus) != 1)) {
> > + mark_tsc_unstable("cpufreq changes: related CPUs affected");
> > + return 0;
> > + }
>
> You might add a check which ensures that policy->cpu == smp_processor_id()
> because if this is not the case ....
How about something like this ?
if (WARN_ON_ONCE(cpumask_weight(freq->policy->related_cpus) != 1 ||
freq->policy->cpu != smp_processor_id())) {
mark_tsc_unstable("cpufreq changes: related CPUs affected");
return 0;
}
Thanks for your feedback.
--
viresh
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH V3] cpufreq: Call transition notifier only once for each policy
@ 2019-03-22 6:27 ` Viresh Kumar
0 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: Viresh Kumar @ 2019-03-22 6:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Thomas Gleixner
Cc: Rafael Wysocki, Peter Zijlstra, Russell King, David S. Miller,
Ingo Molnar, Borislav Petkov, H. Peter Anvin, x86, Paolo Bonzini,
Radim Krčmář,
linux-pm, Vincent Guittot, linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel,
sparclinux, kvm
On 21-03-19, 16:49, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Mar 2019, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/tsc.c b/arch/x86/kernel/tsc.c
> > index 3fae23834069..b2fe665878f7 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/tsc.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/tsc.c
> > @@ -958,10 +958,15 @@ static int time_cpufreq_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb, unsigned long val,
> > struct cpufreq_freqs *freq = data;
> > unsigned long *lpj;
> >
> > + if (WARN_ON_ONCE(cpumask_weight(freq->policy->related_cpus) != 1)) {
> > + mark_tsc_unstable("cpufreq changes: related CPUs affected");
> > + return 0;
> > + }
>
> You might add a check which ensures that policy->cpu = smp_processor_id()
> because if this is not the case ....
How about something like this ?
if (WARN_ON_ONCE(cpumask_weight(freq->policy->related_cpus) != 1 ||
freq->policy->cpu != smp_processor_id())) {
mark_tsc_unstable("cpufreq changes: related CPUs affected");
return 0;
}
Thanks for your feedback.
--
viresh
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH V3] cpufreq: Call transition notifier only once for each policy
@ 2019-03-22 6:27 ` Viresh Kumar
0 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: Viresh Kumar @ 2019-03-22 6:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Thomas Gleixner
Cc: Vincent Guittot, kvm, Radim Krčmář,
Peter Zijlstra, linux-pm, x86, Rafael Wysocki, Russell King,
linux-kernel, Ingo Molnar, Borislav Petkov, H. Peter Anvin,
sparclinux, Paolo Bonzini, David S. Miller, linux-arm-kernel
On 21-03-19, 16:49, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Mar 2019, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/tsc.c b/arch/x86/kernel/tsc.c
> > index 3fae23834069..b2fe665878f7 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/tsc.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/tsc.c
> > @@ -958,10 +958,15 @@ static int time_cpufreq_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb, unsigned long val,
> > struct cpufreq_freqs *freq = data;
> > unsigned long *lpj;
> >
> > + if (WARN_ON_ONCE(cpumask_weight(freq->policy->related_cpus) != 1)) {
> > + mark_tsc_unstable("cpufreq changes: related CPUs affected");
> > + return 0;
> > + }
>
> You might add a check which ensures that policy->cpu == smp_processor_id()
> because if this is not the case ....
How about something like this ?
if (WARN_ON_ONCE(cpumask_weight(freq->policy->related_cpus) != 1 ||
freq->policy->cpu != smp_processor_id())) {
mark_tsc_unstable("cpufreq changes: related CPUs affected");
return 0;
}
Thanks for your feedback.
--
viresh
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH V3] cpufreq: Call transition notifier only once for each policy
2019-03-22 6:27 ` Viresh Kumar
(?)
@ 2019-03-22 9:55 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: Rafael J. Wysocki @ 2019-03-22 9:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Viresh Kumar
Cc: Thomas Gleixner, Rafael Wysocki, Peter Zijlstra, Russell King,
David S. Miller, Ingo Molnar, Borislav Petkov, H. Peter Anvin,
the arch/x86 maintainers, Paolo Bonzini,
Radim Krčmář,
Linux PM, Vincent Guittot, Linux ARM, Linux Kernel Mailing List,
sparclinux, kvm
On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 7:28 AM Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> On 21-03-19, 16:49, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Wed, 20 Mar 2019, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > >
> > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/tsc.c b/arch/x86/kernel/tsc.c
> > > index 3fae23834069..b2fe665878f7 100644
> > > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/tsc.c
> > > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/tsc.c
> > > @@ -958,10 +958,15 @@ static int time_cpufreq_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb, unsigned long val,
> > > struct cpufreq_freqs *freq = data;
> > > unsigned long *lpj;
> > >
> > > + if (WARN_ON_ONCE(cpumask_weight(freq->policy->related_cpus) != 1)) {
> > > + mark_tsc_unstable("cpufreq changes: related CPUs affected");
> > > + return 0;
> > > + }
> >
> > You might add a check which ensures that policy->cpu == smp_processor_id()
> > because if this is not the case ....
>
> How about something like this ?
>
> if (WARN_ON_ONCE(cpumask_weight(freq->policy->related_cpus) != 1 ||
> freq->policy->cpu != smp_processor_id())) {
> mark_tsc_unstable("cpufreq changes: related CPUs affected");
> return 0;
> }
>
>
> Thanks for your feedback.
Peter suggested something like this IIRC.
Anyway, I'm still concerned that this approach in general
fundamentally doesn't work on SMP with frequency synchronization,
which is the case for the platforms affected by the problem it
attempts to overcome.
The frequency has just been changed on one CPU, presumably to the
requested value (so this cannot work when turbo is enabled anyway),
but then it also has changed for all of the other CPUs in the system
(or at least in the package), so it is not sufficient to update the
single CPU here as it is only a messenger, so to speak. However,
updating the other CPUs from here would be fundamentally racy AFAICS.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH V3] cpufreq: Call transition notifier only once for each policy
@ 2019-03-22 9:55 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
0 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: Rafael J. Wysocki @ 2019-03-22 9:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Viresh Kumar
Cc: Vincent Guittot, kvm, Radim Krčmář,
Peter Zijlstra, Linux PM, the arch/x86 maintainers,
Rafael Wysocki, Russell King, Linux Kernel Mailing List,
Ingo Molnar, Borislav Petkov, H. Peter Anvin, sparclinux,
Paolo Bonzini, Thomas Gleixner, David S. Miller, Linux ARM
On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 7:28 AM Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> On 21-03-19, 16:49, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Wed, 20 Mar 2019, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > >
> > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/tsc.c b/arch/x86/kernel/tsc.c
> > > index 3fae23834069..b2fe665878f7 100644
> > > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/tsc.c
> > > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/tsc.c
> > > @@ -958,10 +958,15 @@ static int time_cpufreq_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb, unsigned long val,
> > > struct cpufreq_freqs *freq = data;
> > > unsigned long *lpj;
> > >
> > > + if (WARN_ON_ONCE(cpumask_weight(freq->policy->related_cpus) != 1)) {
> > > + mark_tsc_unstable("cpufreq changes: related CPUs affected");
> > > + return 0;
> > > + }
> >
> > You might add a check which ensures that policy->cpu == smp_processor_id()
> > because if this is not the case ....
>
> How about something like this ?
>
> if (WARN_ON_ONCE(cpumask_weight(freq->policy->related_cpus) != 1 ||
> freq->policy->cpu != smp_processor_id())) {
> mark_tsc_unstable("cpufreq changes: related CPUs affected");
> return 0;
> }
>
>
> Thanks for your feedback.
Peter suggested something like this IIRC.
Anyway, I'm still concerned that this approach in general
fundamentally doesn't work on SMP with frequency synchronization,
which is the case for the platforms affected by the problem it
attempts to overcome.
The frequency has just been changed on one CPU, presumably to the
requested value (so this cannot work when turbo is enabled anyway),
but then it also has changed for all of the other CPUs in the system
(or at least in the package), so it is not sufficient to update the
single CPU here as it is only a messenger, so to speak. However,
updating the other CPUs from here would be fundamentally racy AFAICS.
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH V3] cpufreq: Call transition notifier only once for each policy
@ 2019-03-22 9:55 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
0 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: Rafael J. Wysocki @ 2019-03-22 9:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Viresh Kumar
Cc: Thomas Gleixner, Rafael Wysocki, Peter Zijlstra, Russell King,
David S. Miller, Ingo Molnar, Borislav Petkov, H. Peter Anvin,
the arch/x86 maintainers, Paolo Bonzini,
Radim Krčmář,
Linux PM, Vincent Guittot, Linux ARM, Linux Kernel Mailing List,
sparclinux, kvm
On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 7:28 AM Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> On 21-03-19, 16:49, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Wed, 20 Mar 2019, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > >
> > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/tsc.c b/arch/x86/kernel/tsc.c
> > > index 3fae23834069..b2fe665878f7 100644
> > > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/tsc.c
> > > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/tsc.c
> > > @@ -958,10 +958,15 @@ static int time_cpufreq_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb, unsigned long val,
> > > struct cpufreq_freqs *freq = data;
> > > unsigned long *lpj;
> > >
> > > + if (WARN_ON_ONCE(cpumask_weight(freq->policy->related_cpus) != 1)) {
> > > + mark_tsc_unstable("cpufreq changes: related CPUs affected");
> > > + return 0;
> > > + }
> >
> > You might add a check which ensures that policy->cpu = smp_processor_id()
> > because if this is not the case ....
>
> How about something like this ?
>
> if (WARN_ON_ONCE(cpumask_weight(freq->policy->related_cpus) != 1 ||
> freq->policy->cpu != smp_processor_id())) {
> mark_tsc_unstable("cpufreq changes: related CPUs affected");
> return 0;
> }
>
>
> Thanks for your feedback.
Peter suggested something like this IIRC.
Anyway, I'm still concerned that this approach in general
fundamentally doesn't work on SMP with frequency synchronization,
which is the case for the platforms affected by the problem it
attempts to overcome.
The frequency has just been changed on one CPU, presumably to the
requested value (so this cannot work when turbo is enabled anyway),
but then it also has changed for all of the other CPUs in the system
(or at least in the package), so it is not sufficient to update the
single CPU here as it is only a messenger, so to speak. However,
updating the other CPUs from here would be fundamentally racy AFAICS.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread