linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v2 4/4] cpuidle: (POWER) Handle power

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:	Mon, 28 Nov 2011 16:33:25 +0530
From:	Deepthi Dharwar <deepthi@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
CC:	linuxppc-dev@...abs.org, linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 4/4] cpuidle: (POWER) Handle power_save=off

On 11/28/2011 04:37 AM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:

> On Thu, 2011-11-17 at 16:59 +0530, Deepthi Dharwar wrote:
>> This patch makes pseries_idle_driver not to be registered when
>> power_save=off kernel boot option is specified. The
>> boot_option_idle_override variable used here is similar to
>> its usage on x86.
> 
> Quick Q. With your changes, the CPU will never get into idle at all
> until cpuidle initializes and the driver loads.
> 
> That means not only much later in the boot process, but potentially
> never if the distro has the driver as a module and fails to load it, or
> similar.
> 
> Can't that be an issue ? Shouldn't we keep at least one of the basic
> idle functions as a fallback ?
> 

On an LPAR if cpuidle is disabled, ppc_md.power_save is still set to
cpuidle_idle_call by default here. This would result in calling of
cpuidle_idle_call repeatedly, only for the call to return -ENODEV. The
default idle is never executed.
This would be a major design flaw. No fallback idle routine.

We propose to fix this by checking the return value of
ppc_md.power_save() call from void to int.
Right now return value is void, but if we change this to int, this
would solve two problems. One being removing the cast to a function
pointer in the prev patch and this design flaw stated above.

So by checking the return value of ppc_md.power_save(), we can invoke
the default idle on failure. But my only concern is about the effects of
changing the ppc_md.power_save() to return int on other powerpc
architectures. Would it be a good idea to change the return type to int
which would help us flag an error and fallback to default idle?

> Cheers,

> Ben.
> 
> 

Regards,
Deepthi

--
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/