linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v2 1/4] cpuidle: (powerpc) Add cpu_idle_wait() to allow switching of idle routines

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:	Tue, 29 Nov 2011 12:12:10 +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 1/4] cpuidle: (powerpc) Add cpu_idle_wait() to
 allow switching of idle routines

On 11/29/2011 02:05 AM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:

> On Mon, 2011-11-28 at 16:32 +0530, Deepthi Dharwar wrote:
> 
>>> Additionally, I'm a bit worried (but maybe we already discussed that a
>>> while back, I don't know) but cpu_idle_wait() has "wait" in the name,
>>> which makes me think it might need to actually -wait- for all cpus to
>>> have come out of the function.
>>
>> cpu_idle_wait is used to ensure that all the CPUs discard old idle
>> handler and update to new one.  Required while changing idle
>> handler on SMP systems.
>>
>>> Now your implementation doesn't provide that guarantee. It might be
>>> fine, I don't know, but if it is, you'd better document it well in the
>>> comments surrounding the code, because as it is, all you do is shoot an
>>> interrupt which will cause the target CPU to eventually come out of idle
>>> some time in the future.
>>
>>
>> I was hoping that sending an explicit reschedule to the cpus would
>> do the trick but sure we can add some documentation around the code.
> 
> Well, the question is what guarantee do you expect. Sending a reschedule
> IPI will take the other CPUs out of the actual sleep mode, but it will
> be some time from there back to getting out of the handler function
> (first back out of hypervisor etc...).
> 
> The code as you implemented it doesn't wait for that to happen. It might
> be fine ... or not. I don't know what semantics you are after precisely.
> 
> Cheers,
> Ben.
> 
> 


Yes, this could be problematic as there is small window for the
race condition to occur . Otherwise we need to manually schedule
it by running a kernel thread but this would definitely have a
overhead and would be an overkill.

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/