linux-kernel - Re: + restore-missing-sysfs-max_cstate-attr.patch added to -mm tree

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]

Message-ID: <477FAFE9.6090809@rtr.ca>
Date:	Sat, 05 Jan 2008 11:27:21 -0500
From:	Mark Lord <lkml@....ca>
To:	"Pallipadi, Venkatesh" <venkatesh.pallipadi@...el.com>
Cc:	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, abelay@...ell.com,
	lenb@...nel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
	rjw@...k.pl
Subject: Re: + restore-missing-sysfs-max_cstate-attr.patch added to -mm tree

Pallipadi, Venkatesh wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Mark Lord [mailto:lkml@....ca] 
..
>> Okay, with !CONFIG_CPU_IDLE, this works fine -- same as 2.6.23 
>> and earlier.
>>
> 
> Good to know. Atleast we do not have a regression for 2.6.24 now.
..

Agreed.  We're happy here, for now.

>>> Meanwhile, can you give a short summary of how behaviour differs
>>> between CONFIG_CPU_IDLE and !CONFIG_CPU_IDLE  ??
>>>
>>> I'm not at all clear on how this really affects things.
> 
> With CPU_IDLE, the C-state policy is removed from acpi driver. Ideally
> policy should have nothing to do with ACPI, as ACPI only provides the
> C-state mechanisms. So, with CPU_IDLE, it is not easy to control this
> variable through a acpi driver module at run time. Also, the latency
> interface that was mentioned before is to serve the same purpose in a
> more clear manner (based on the wakeup latency) instead of a C-state
> number which may not mean much from the end user point of view.
> 
> I will look at why latency does not work on a single core system
> soon(Was that with UP kernel or SMP kernel?). That way we will have a
> proper cover for this with CPU_IDLE in future.
..

That was with a UP kernel on a UP box.

The latency thingie really seemed to have little or no effect,
whereas setting max_cstate=1 has a quite noticeable positive impact.

Things seemed okay (with the latency thingie) on the SMP machine,
but with two cores it is probably simply more forgiving.  

cheers
--
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/