linux-kernel - RE: [patch 1/2] x86: Add pm_play_dead funcptr to power-efficiently offline CPUs

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, 22 Jun 2009 10:25:43 -0700
From:	"Pallipadi, Venkatesh" <venkatesh.pallipadi@...el.com>
To:	"Pallipadi, Venkatesh" <venkatesh.pallipadi@...el.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
CC:	"mingo@...e.hu" <mingo@...e.hu>,
	"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	"hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"lenb@...nel.org" <lenb@...nel.org>,
	"Li, Shaohua" <shaohua.li@...el.com>,
	"svaidy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com" <svaidy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: RE: [patch 1/2] x86: Add pm_play_dead funcptr to power-efficiently
 offline CPUs

 

>From: Pallipadi, Venkatesh 
>>From: Peter Zijlstra [mailto:a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl] 
>>On Fri, 2009-05-22 at 16:19 -0700, 
>venkatesh.pallipadi@...el.com wrote:
>>> plain text document attachment
>>> (0001-x86-Add-pm_play_dead-funcptr-to-power-efficiently-o.patch)
>>> Add a funcptr pm_play_dead (similar to pm_idle) that can take
>>> the offline CPUs to the most power efficient idle state.
>>> 
>>> This patch just adds the func pointer. The pointer will get 
>>initialized
>>> by patch that follows.
>>
>>Since the pm_idle function pointer has given us so much grief, I don't
>>think its wise to repeat that particular disaster.
>>
>>I'd much rather see a framework where idle functions can be 
>registered,
>>and selected from based on criteria such as wakeup latency as provided
>>by the pm_qos stuff, and power saving.
>>
>>This framework should be shared between hotplug-idle and the regular
>>idle routines. Hotplug would of course not care about things 
>>like wakeup
>>latency and might therefore pick another idle routine.
>>
>
>Yes. Thought about that approach. There are issues with that 
>approach however.
>- It would be ugly as we have to add logic in various low 
>level idle handlers we have today mwait_idle, default_idle, 
>acpi_mwait_idle, acpi_ioport_idle to make them aware of 
>offline idle case and disable interrupt and not enable 
>interrupt while going idle and not to wake up on interrupt.
>- There are limitations on what we can and cannot do when 
>offline. We have had issues with calling acpi methods and/or 
>IO port accesses, during suspend before, so CPU going on 
>suspend only uses C1. Specifically, with the above approach we 
>will have:
>1) CPU 1 going offline and starts using regular ACPI IO port C-states.
>2) CPU 0 starts suspend and after some points it is unsafe to 
>access ACPI io port accesses, which can potentially result in 
>crash/hangs.
>
>So, I would like to keep ACPI out of play_dead. And keeping 
>idle and play_dead separate seemed to be cleaner way to do it.
>

Peter,

Any more comments on this approach? As I mentioned above, from my POV,
it is simpler and cleaner to keep ACPI out of the CPU offline path.
Do you agree?

Thanks,
Venki--
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/