linux-kernel - Re: [BISECTED] Lots of "rescheduling IPIs" in powertop

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]

Message-ID: <482A8D7D.7000208@firstfloor.org>
Date:	Wed, 14 May 2008 08:58:05 +0200
From:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To:	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
CC:	Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@...il.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Andreas Herrmann <andreas.herrmann3@....com>,
	"S.Çag(lar Onur" 
	<caglar@...dus.org.tr>, Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu,
	Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	lenb@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [BISECTED] Lots of "rescheduling IPIs" in powertop

Arjan van de Ven wrote:

[cc Len]

> On Tue, 13 May 2008 23:19:47 +0200
> Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org> wrote:
> 
>> Ok the CPU reports it doesn't support any C states in MWAIT. If that
>> is correct then it would be correct to not use MWAIT idle and might
>> actually save more power to not use it.
> 
> what does the current SVN powertop say on this cpu?
> 
>> I don't know if that's true or not. Do you have a power meter perhaps?
>> If yes can you measure if there's a difference between mwait=idle /
>> default on your box when it is idle?
>>
>> [cc Arjan he might now if that CPU is supposed to support C1 in MWAIT]
> 
> I wasn't aware that P4's supported mwait in this way; I thought it was
> core and later.

Not even C1? I generally consider MWAIT without C1 to be unusable.

Anyways if C1 doesn't work then it would be correct to not use MWAIT.
> 
>> CPU reports it supports C1/C2/C3. Are you sure there is a difference
>> on that box? The code should have kept using MWAIT because it checks
>> C1. Please double check.
> 
> The check is .. dubious I suspect... 

I don't think so.

> because the cpuid bits are not
> actually the prime source of information, the BIOS is.

Hmmm? What BIOS information are you refering to?

Normally it's my experience that CPUID is more reliable than the BIOS.

> If the bios says mwait is usable, we need to use it with the values IT
> gives us.

At least to my knowledge the ACPI FADT just says what C states are
available, not if they are implemented with MWAIT or using IO ports.

-Andi



--
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/