linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 2/4] x86, mwaitt: introduce mwaitx idle with a configurable timer

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, 21 May 2015 22:15:17 +0800
From:	Huang Rui <ray.huang@....com>
To:	Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>
CC:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@...el.com>,
	"Aaron Lu" <aaron.lu@...el.com>, "Li, Tony" <Tony.Li@....com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/4] x86, mwaitt: introduce mwaitx idle with a
 configurable timer

On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 05:12:13PM +0800, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 10:55:20AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > Does it use it to decide how 'deep' a sleep it will go into, i.e. 
> > larger timeouts cause longer entry and exit latencies?
> 
> That's what the HLT thing does. Cores go into C1 and then at some point
> (hysteresis, etc) the whole core complex enters C1E.
> 
> The MWAIT* should be used for only shorter sleeps as it remains in C1.
> IMHO, of course.
> 
> But the problem there is another: what happens if the timeout fires,
> you wake up and see that you can remain idle? Do HLT? Do another MWAITX
> round?
> 
> This means you have an additional unnecessary wakeup which costs.
> 
> > I suppose it's also the case that if an interrupt arrives _before_ the 
> > expected timeout then MWAITX will try to exit immediately, it won't 
> > wait until the timeout, right?
> 
> I'd assume so - I mean, it must, right.
> 
> BUT!, in talking to Andy about it last night on IRC, he pointed out
> that when using acpi_idle, we never come to calling x86_idle() and from
> looking quickly at cpuidle_idle_call(), that still might be the case as
> we go to use_default only when there's an error with the cpuidle driver
> or so.
> 
> So Rui, before you go and do more work on it, you should probably
> analyze what cpuidle exactly does (if you haven't done so yet). And on
> AMD we do use acpi_idle - at least on my F15h box that is the case:
> 
> $ grep . /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpuidle/current_*
> /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpuidle/current_driver:acpi_idle
> /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpuidle/current_governor_ro:menu
> 

OK, I know. Thanks to reminder. :)

Thanks,
Rui
--
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/