linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH V4 5/5] cpuidle: cpuidle driver for apm

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:	Wed, 23 Mar 2011 16:32:00 -0400 (EDT)
From:	Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>
To:	Trinabh Gupta <trinabh@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>, arjan@...ux.intel.com,
	peterz@...radead.org, suresh.b.siddha@...el.com,
	benh@...nel.crashing.org, venki@...gle.com, ak@...ux.intel.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH V4 5/5] cpuidle: cpuidle driver for apm

> > Also wondering why you would ever have a different idle routine on
> > different cpus?
> 
> Yes, this is an ongoing debate. Apparently it is a possibility
> because of ACPI bugs. CPU's can have asymmetric C-states
> and overall different idle routines on different cpus. Please
> refer to http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/9/24/132 and
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/2/10/37 for a discussion around this.

Althought the ACPI specification allows the BIOS to tell the OS
about different C-states per-processor, I know of zero system
in the field and zero systems in development that require that
capability.  That isn't a guarantee that capability will never
be used, but I'm not holding my breath.

If there are systems with broken tables that make them
appear asymetric, then we should have a workaround that handles
that case, rather than complicating the normal code for
the broken case.

So I recommend deleting the extra per-cpu registration stuff
unless there is some other architecture that requires it
and can't hadle the asymmetry in another way.

> I have posted a patch series that does global registration
> i.e same idle routines for each cpu. Please check
> http://lkml.org/lkml/2011/3/22/161 . That series applies on
> top of this series. Global registration significantly
> simplifies the design, but still we are not sure about the
> direction to take.

I'll review that.

thanks,
Len Brown, Intel Open Source Technology Center

--
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/