linux-kernel - Re: Fw: [BUG 2.6.21-rc7] acpi_pm clocksource loses time on x86-64

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <1178246331.7460.27.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Date:	Thu, 03 May 2007 19:38:50 -0700
From:	john stultz <johnstul@...ibm.com>
To:	Mikael Pettersson <mikpe@...uu.se>
Cc:	Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>
Subject: Re: Fw: [BUG 2.6.21-rc7] acpi_pm clocksource loses time on x86-64

On Wed, 2007-05-02 at 11:10 -0700, john stultz wrote:
> On Sun, 2007-04-29 at 17:24 +0200, Mikael Pettersson wrote:
> > On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 15:42:44 -0700, john stultz wrote:
> > >Another shot in the dark:
> > >
> > >I wonder if the ACPI PM counter is halting in idle. Does booting w/
> > >idle=poll change the behavior? (Please do this while your laptop is
> > >plugged in, as it will run the cpu at full speed all the time).
> > 
> > Bingo!
> 
> Awesome! Finally, some progress! Thanks again for putting up w/ all my
> testing requests.
> 
> > I booted the x86-64 2.6.21 final kernel with idle=poll and let the
> > laptop idle for an hour. The ondemand cpufreq governor did reduce
> > the CPU's clock frequency, but that shouldn't have affected the
> > chipset or the ACPI PM counter.
> > 
> > Anyway, after 60 minutes `date' and `hwclock' were still in perfect
> > sync and matched actual time.
> > 
> > Any ideas why this halting in idle doesn't happen with the 32-bit kernel?
> 
> No clue. Time to ask Len. :)
> 
> Hey Len,
> 	So that slow acpi_pm on x86_64 seems to be connected w/ the idle loop.
> I'm guessing the chipset halts the ACPI PM in lower C states. Do you
> have any guesses as to what might differ between x86_64 and i386 ACPI
> idle loops? Or might this be something different in what the BIOS
> exports in x86_64 mode or i386 mode?

Mikael,
	Just trying to dig a bit more through the acpi_processor_idle code.
Could you run "cat /proc/acpi/processor/CPU1/power" and reply w/ the
output?

thanks
-john




-
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/