linux-kernel - RE: + restore-missing-sysfs-max_cstate-attr.patch added to -mm tree

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Date:	Fri, 30 Nov 2007 14:37:46 -0800
From:	"Pallipadi, Venkatesh" <venkatesh.pallipadi@...el.com>
To:	"Andrew Morton" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	<lkml@....ca>, <abelay@...ell.com>, <lenb@...nel.org>,
	<mlord@...ox.com>, <rjw@...k.pl>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	<linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: + restore-missing-sysfs-max_cstate-attr.patch added to -mm tree

 

>On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 14:06:55 -0800
>"Pallipadi, Venkatesh" <venkatesh.pallipadi@...el.com> wrote:
>
>Please dont go off-list like this.  I put Mark's original 
>mailing list cc's
>back.

Sorry for missing some cc's earlier. I blindly did a reply-all to the
mm-commits mail I got.

>> I will have to Nack this. The reason max_cstate was initentionally
>> removed due to couple of reasons:
>
>It broke userspace without any warning or migration period, afaict.

Yes. That's true. I will have to take the blame for that. It has been
known for a while during cpuidle development. But, it was never
documented as deprecating.
 
>> 1) All in kernel users of max_cstate should rather be using
>> pm_qos/latency interfaces. All such max_cstate usages must already be
>> migrated.
>
>That code isn't merged.

All kernel part is already merged. I mean, there are do drivers that
depend on max_cstate. They use latency_notifier thing today and their
migration to pm_qos part is not merged yet.

>> 2) Supporting max_cstate as a dynamic parameter cleanly is no longer
>> possible in acpi/processor_idle.c as the C-state policy has moved to
>> cpuidle instead. It can be done if it is needed. But, just 
>below patch
>> will not really work with cpuidle.
>> 
>> Selecting max_cstate at boot time as a debug option still 
>works without
>> this patch.
>> 
>> So, just this patch will not get back the functionality with cpuidle.
>> Infact changing it at run time will have no effect. Question 
>however is:
>> Is there a real need to revive this parameter so that user can change
>> max_cstate at run time?
>
>It is not known whether Mark is actually writing to this 
>thing.  Perhaps
>read-only permissions would be a suitable fix?
>

Exporting it as read only should be OK. We also need to know if there
are hard user space dependency on writing to this from userspace.

Thanks,
Venki  
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/