linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 00/13] nohz: Use sysidle detection to let the timekeeper sleep

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:	Wed, 18 Dec 2013 13:29:53 -0800
From:	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To:	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	Alex Shi <alex.shi@...aro.org>
CC:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
	Kevin Hilman <khilman@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 00/13] nohz: Use sysidle detection to let the timekeeper
 sleep

On 12/18/2013 09:43 AM, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 10:04:43AM +0800, Alex Shi wrote:
>> On 12/18/2013 06:51 AM, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
>>> So this is what this series brings, more details following:
>>>
>>> * Some code, naming and whitespace cleanups
>>>
>>> * Allow all CPUs outside the nohz_full range to handle the timekeeping
>>>   duty, not just CPU 0. Balancing the timekeeping duty should improve
>>>   powersavings.
>>
>> If the system just has one nohz_full cpu running, it will need another
>> cpu to do timerkeeper job. Then the system roughly needs 2 cpu living.
>> From powersaving POV, that is not good compare to normal nohz idle.
> 
> Sure, but everything has a tradeoff :)
> 
> We could theoretically run with the timekeeper purely idle if the other
> CPU in full dynticks mode runs in userspace for a long while and seldom
> do syscalls and faults. Timekeeping could be updated on kernel/user
> boundaries in this case without much impact on performances.
> 
> But then there is one strict condition for that: it can't read the timeofday
> through the vdso but only through a syscall.

Where's your ambition? :)

If the vdso timing functions could see that it's been too long since a
real timekeeping update, they could fall back to a syscall.  Otherwise,
they could using rdtsc or whatever is in use.

--Andy
--
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/