2020-04-28 13:27:04

by Giovanni Gherdovich

Subject: [PATCH 2/2] x86, sched: Bail out of frequency invariance if turbo frequency is unknown

There may be CPUs that support turbo boost but don't declare any turbo
ratio, i.e. their MSR_TURBO_RATIO_LIMIT is all zeroes. In that condition
scale-invariant calculations can't be performed.

Signed-off-by: Giovanni Gherdovich <[email protected]>
Suggested-by: Ricardo Neri <[email protected]>
Fixes: 1567c3e3467c ("x86, sched: Add support for frequency invariance")
---
arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c | 6 ++++--
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c b/arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c
index 4718f29a3065..ab2a0df7d1fb 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c
@@ -1991,9 +1991,11 @@ static bool intel_set_max_freq_ratio(void)
/*
* Some hypervisors advertise X86_FEATURE_APERFMPERF
* but then fill all MSR's with zeroes.
+ * Some CPUs have turbo boost but don't declare any turbo ratio
+ * in MSR_TURBO_RATIO_LIMIT.
*/
- if (!base_freq) {
- pr_debug("Couldn't determine cpu base frequency, necessary for scale-invariant accounting.\n");
+ if (!base_freq || !turbo_freq) {
+ pr_debug("Couldn't determine cpu base or turbo frequency, necessary for scale-invariant accounting.\n");
return false;
}

--
2.16.4

2020-04-29 11:34:57

by Rafael J. Wysocki

Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] x86, sched: Bail out of frequency invariance if turbo frequency is unknown

On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 3:25 PM Giovanni Gherdovich <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> There may be CPUs that support turbo boost but don't declare any turbo
> ratio, i.e. their MSR_TURBO_RATIO_LIMIT is all zeroes. In that condition
> scale-invariant calculations can't be performed.
>
> Signed-off-by: Giovanni Gherdovich <[email protected]>
> Suggested-by: Ricardo Neri <[email protected]>
> Fixes: 1567c3e3467c ("x86, sched: Add support for frequency invariance")

Acked-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <[email protected]>

> ---
> arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c | 6 ++++--
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c b/arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c
> index 4718f29a3065..ab2a0df7d1fb 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c
> @@ -1991,9 +1991,11 @@ static bool intel_set_max_freq_ratio(void)
> /*
> * Some hypervisors advertise X86_FEATURE_APERFMPERF
> * but then fill all MSR's with zeroes.
> + * Some CPUs have turbo boost but don't declare any turbo ratio
> + * in MSR_TURBO_RATIO_LIMIT.
> */
> - if (!base_freq) {
> - pr_debug("Couldn't determine cpu base frequency, necessary for scale-invariant accounting.\n");
> + if (!base_freq || !turbo_freq) {
> + pr_debug("Couldn't determine cpu base or turbo frequency, necessary for scale-invariant accounting.\n");
> return false;
> }
>
> --
> 2.16.4
>

2020-05-01 13:09:30

by Peter Zijlstra

Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] x86, sched: Bail out of frequency invariance if turbo frequency is unknown

On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 03:24:50PM +0200, Giovanni Gherdovich wrote:
> There may be CPUs that support turbo boost but don't declare any turbo
> ratio, i.e. their MSR_TURBO_RATIO_LIMIT is all zeroes. In that condition
> scale-invariant calculations can't be performed.
>
> Signed-off-by: Giovanni Gherdovich <[email protected]>
> Suggested-by: Ricardo Neri <[email protected]>
> Fixes: 1567c3e3467c ("x86, sched: Add support for frequency invariance")
> ---
> arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c | 6 ++++--
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c b/arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c
> index 4718f29a3065..ab2a0df7d1fb 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c
> @@ -1991,9 +1991,11 @@ static bool intel_set_max_freq_ratio(void)
> /*
> * Some hypervisors advertise X86_FEATURE_APERFMPERF
> * but then fill all MSR's with zeroes.
> + * Some CPUs have turbo boost but don't declare any turbo ratio
> + * in MSR_TURBO_RATIO_LIMIT.
> */
> - if (!base_freq) {
> - pr_debug("Couldn't determine cpu base frequency, necessary for scale-invariant accounting.\n");
> + if (!base_freq || !turbo_freq) {
> + pr_debug("Couldn't determine cpu base or turbo frequency, necessary for scale-invariant accounting.\n");
> return false;
> }

I've added the below, imagine base_freq > turbo_freq *
SCHED_CAPACITY_SCALE.

--- a/arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c
@@ -1975,6 +1975,7 @@ static bool core_set_max_freq_ratio(u64
static bool intel_set_max_freq_ratio(void)
{
u64 base_freq, turbo_freq;
+ u64 turbo_ratio;

if (slv_set_max_freq_ratio(&base_freq, &turbo_freq))
goto out;
@@ -2008,9 +2009,15 @@ static bool intel_set_max_freq_ratio(voi
return false;
}

- arch_turbo_freq_ratio = div_u64(turbo_freq * SCHED_CAPACITY_SCALE,
- base_freq);
+ turbo_ratio = div_u64(turbo_freq * SCHED_CAPACITY_SCALE, base_freq);
+ if (!turbo_ratio) {
+ pr_debug("Non-zero turbo and base frequencies led to a 0 ratio.\n");
+ return false;
+ }
+
+ arch_turbo_freq_ratio = turbo_ratio;
arch_set_max_freq_ratio(turbo_disabled());
+
return true;
}

2020-05-02 00:05:57

by Ricardo Neri

Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] x86, sched: Bail out of frequency invariance if turbo frequency is unknown

On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 03:24:50PM +0200, Giovanni Gherdovich wrote:
> There may be CPUs that support turbo boost but don't declare any turbo
> ratio, i.e. their MSR_TURBO_RATIO_LIMIT is all zeroes. In that condition
> scale-invariant calculations can't be performed.
>
> Signed-off-by: Giovanni Gherdovich <[email protected]>
> Suggested-by: Ricardo Neri <[email protected]>

Thanks for implementing this, Giovanni!

Tested-by: Ricardo Neri <[email protected]>

2020-05-02 00:07:57

by Ricardo Neri

Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] x86, sched: Bail out of frequency invariance if turbo frequency is unknown

On Fri, May 01, 2020 at 03:04:27PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 03:24:50PM +0200, Giovanni Gherdovich wrote:
> > There may be CPUs that support turbo boost but don't declare any turbo
> > ratio, i.e. their MSR_TURBO_RATIO_LIMIT is all zeroes. In that condition
> > scale-invariant calculations can't be performed.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Giovanni Gherdovich <[email protected]>
> > Suggested-by: Ricardo Neri <[email protected]>
> > Fixes: 1567c3e3467c ("x86, sched: Add support for frequency invariance")
> > ---
> > arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c | 6 ++++--
> > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c b/arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c
> > index 4718f29a3065..ab2a0df7d1fb 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c
> > @@ -1991,9 +1991,11 @@ static bool intel_set_max_freq_ratio(void)
> > /*
> > * Some hypervisors advertise X86_FEATURE_APERFMPERF
> > * but then fill all MSR's with zeroes.
> > + * Some CPUs have turbo boost but don't declare any turbo ratio
> > + * in MSR_TURBO_RATIO_LIMIT.
> > */
> > - if (!base_freq) {
> > - pr_debug("Couldn't determine cpu base frequency, necessary for scale-invariant accounting.\n");
> > + if (!base_freq || !turbo_freq) {
> > + pr_debug("Couldn't determine cpu base or turbo frequency, necessary for scale-invariant accounting.\n");
> > return false;
> > }
>
> I've added the below, imagine base_freq > turbo_freq *
> SCHED_CAPACITY_SCALE.
>
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c
> @@ -1975,6 +1975,7 @@ static bool core_set_max_freq_ratio(u64
> static bool intel_set_max_freq_ratio(void)
> {
> u64 base_freq, turbo_freq;
> + u64 turbo_ratio;
>
> if (slv_set_max_freq_ratio(&base_freq, &turbo_freq))
> goto out;
> @@ -2008,9 +2009,15 @@ static bool intel_set_max_freq_ratio(voi
> return false;
> }
>
> - arch_turbo_freq_ratio = div_u64(turbo_freq * SCHED_CAPACITY_SCALE,
> - base_freq);
> + turbo_ratio = div_u64(turbo_freq * SCHED_CAPACITY_SCALE, base_freq);
> + if (!turbo_ratio) {
> + pr_debug("Non-zero turbo and base frequencies led to a 0 ratio.\n");
> + return false;
> + }
> +
> + arch_turbo_freq_ratio = turbo_ratio;

I guess this covers more cases in which turbo_ratio can be zero.

Also, FWIW

Tested-by: Ricardo Neri <[email protected]>

Thanks and BR,
Ricardo

2020-05-02 14:28:19

by Giovanni Gherdovich

Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] x86, sched: Bail out of frequency invariance if turbo frequency is unknown

On Fri, 2020-05-01 at 15:04 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 03:24:50PM +0200, Giovanni Gherdovich wrote:
> > There may be CPUs that support turbo boost but don't declare any turbo
> > ratio, i.e. their MSR_TURBO_RATIO_LIMIT is all zeroes. In that condition
> > scale-invariant calculations can't be performed.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Giovanni Gherdovich <[email protected]>
> > Suggested-by: Ricardo Neri <[email protected]>
> > Fixes: 1567c3e3467c ("x86, sched: Add support for frequency invariance")
> > ---
> > arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c | 6 ++++--
> > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c b/arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c
> > index 4718f29a3065..ab2a0df7d1fb 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c
> > @@ -1991,9 +1991,11 @@ static bool intel_set_max_freq_ratio(void)
> > /*
> > * Some hypervisors advertise X86_FEATURE_APERFMPERF
> > * but then fill all MSR's with zeroes.
> > + * Some CPUs have turbo boost but don't declare any turbo ratio
> > + * in MSR_TURBO_RATIO_LIMIT.
> > */
> > - if (!base_freq) {
> > - pr_debug("Couldn't determine cpu base frequency, necessary for scale-invariant accounting.\n");
> > + if (!base_freq || !turbo_freq) {
> > + pr_debug("Couldn't determine cpu base or turbo frequency, necessary for scale-invariant accounting.\n");
> > return false;
> > }
>
> I've added the below, imagine base_freq > turbo_freq *
> SCHED_CAPACITY_SCALE.

Right, I didn't consider that case. It doesn't hurt to be defensive.

I understand you've already edited the patches in your tree, so I am not
resending, just confirming my

Signed-off-by: Giovanni Gherdovich <[email protected]>

>
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c
> @@ -1975,6 +1975,7 @@ static bool core_set_max_freq_ratio(u64
> static bool intel_set_max_freq_ratio(void)
> {
> u64 base_freq, turbo_freq;
> + u64 turbo_ratio;
>
> if (slv_set_max_freq_ratio(&base_freq, &turbo_freq))
> goto out;
> @@ -2008,9 +2009,15 @@ static bool intel_set_max_freq_ratio(voi
> return false;
> }
>
> - arch_turbo_freq_ratio = div_u64(turbo_freq * SCHED_CAPACITY_SCALE,
> - base_freq);
> + turbo_ratio = div_u64(turbo_freq * SCHED_CAPACITY_SCALE, base_freq);
> + if (!turbo_ratio) {
> + pr_debug("Non-zero turbo and base frequencies led to a 0 ratio.\n");
> + return false;
> + }
> +
> + arch_turbo_freq_ratio = turbo_ratio;
> arch_set_max_freq_ratio(turbo_disabled());
> +
> return true;
> }
>