linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/3] cpuidle: updates related to tick_broadcast

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, 11 May 2015 10:51:02 +0530
From:	Preeti U Murthy <preeti@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>, peterz@...radead.org
CC:	tglx@...utronix.de, rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com,
	daniel.lezcano@...aro.org, rlippert@...gle.com,
	linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, linus.walleij@...aro.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...hat.com,
	sudeep.holla@....com, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] cpuidle: updates related to tick_broadcast_enter()
 failures

On 05/10/2015 04:45 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Saturday, May 09, 2015 10:33:05 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> On Saturday, May 09, 2015 10:11:41 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>> On Saturday, May 09, 2015 11:19:16 AM Preeti U Murthy wrote:
>>>> Hi Rafael,
>>>>
>>>> On 05/08/2015 07:48 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>>
>>> [cut]
>>>
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> +	/* Take note of the planned idle state. */
>>>>>> +	idle_set_state(smp_processor_id(), target_state);
>>>>>
>>>>> And I wouldn't do this either.
>>>>>
>>>>> The behavior here is pretty much as though the driver demoted the state chosen
>>>>> by the governor and we don't call idle_set_state() again in those cases.
>>>>
>>>> Why is this wrong?
>>>
>>> It is not "wrong", but incomplete, because demotions done by the cpuidle driver
>>> should also be taken into account in the same way.
>>>
>>> But I'm seeing that the recent patch of mine that made cpuidle_enter_state()
>>> call default_idle_call() was a mistake, because it might confuse find_idlest_cpu()
>>> significantly as to what state the CPU is in.  I'll drop that one for now.
>>
>> OK, done.
>>
>> So after I've dropped it I think we need to do three things:
>> (1) Move the idle_set_state() calls to cpuidle_enter_state().
>> (2) Make cpuidle_enter_state() call default_idle_call() again, but this time
>>     do that *before* it has called idle_set_state() for target_state.
>> (3) Introduce demotion as per my last patch.
>>
>> Let me cut patches for that.
> 
> Done as per the above and the patches follow in replies to this messge.
> 
> All on top of the current linux-next branch of the linux-pm.git tree.

The patches look good. Based and tested these patches on top of
linux-pm/linux-next (They are not yet in the branch as far as I can see.)

All patches in this series
Reviewed and Tested-by: Preeti U Murthy <preeti@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> 
> 

--
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/