linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] clockevents: Prefer clockevents that don't suffer from FEAT_C3

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:	Thu, 22 Aug 2013 10:40:05 -0700
From:	Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>
To:	Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@...com>
CC:	Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
	Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
	srinivas.kandagatla@...com, Michal Simek <michal.simek@...inx.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Stuart Menefy <stuart.menefy@...com>,
	John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
	Sören Brinkmann <soren.brinkmann@...inx.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] clockevents: Prefer clockevents that don't suffer
 from FEAT_C3_STOP

On 08/22/13 10:33, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
> On Thursday 22 August 2013 01:06 PM, Stephen Boyd wrote:
>> On some ARM systems there are two sets of per-cpu timers: the TWD
>> timers and the global timers. The TWD timers are rated at 350 and
>> the global timers are rated at 300 but the TWD timers suffer from
>> FEAT_C3_STOP while the arm global timers don't. The tick device
>> selection logic doesn't consider the FEAT_C3_STOP flag so we'll
>> always end up with the TWD as the tick device although we don't
>> want that.
>>
>> Extend the preference logic to take the FEAT_C3_STOP flag into
>> account and always prefer tick devices that don't suffer from
>> FEAT_C3_STOP even if their rating is lower than tick devices that
>> do suffer from FEAT_C3_STOP. This will remove the need to do any
>> broadcasting on such ARM systems.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>
>> ---
>>  kernel/time/tick-common.c | 14 ++++++++++++--
>>  1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel/time/tick-common.c b/kernel/time/tick-common.c
>> index 64522ec..3ae437d 100644
>> --- a/kernel/time/tick-common.c
>> +++ b/kernel/time/tick-common.c
>> @@ -244,12 +244,22 @@ static bool tick_check_preferred(struct clock_event_device *curdev,
>>  			return false;
>>  	}
>>  
>> +	if (!curdev)
>> +		return true;
>> +
>> +	/* Always prefer a tick device that doesn't suffer from FEAT_C3STOP */
>> +	if (!(newdev->features & CLOCK_EVT_FEAT_C3STOP) &&
>> +			(curdev->features & CLOCK_EVT_FEAT_C3STOP))
>> +		return true;
>> +	if ((newdev->features & CLOCK_EVT_FEAT_C3STOP) &&
>> +			!(curdev->features & CLOCK_EVT_FEAT_C3STOP))
>> +		return false;
>> +
> I don't think preferring the clock-event which doesn't suffer
> from FEAT_C3STOP is a good idea if the quality of the time source
> is not same. Generally the global timers are slow and far away from
> CPU(cycle cost). So as long as we don't get impacted because of low power
> states, the tick should run out of local timers which are faster access
> as well as high resolution.
>

Fair enough. I have no data either way to convince anyone that this is a
good or bad idea so this patch should have probably been an RFC. Are you
hinting at something like switching to a per-cpu timer that doesn't
suffer from FEAT_C3_STOP when a CPU goes into a deep idle state?
Interesting idea but I think I'll leave that to someone else if they
really care to do that.

-- 
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
hosted by The Linux Foundation

--
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/