linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/4]: CPUIDLE: Introduce architecture independent cpuidle_pm

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:	Fri, 28 Aug 2009 08:40:11 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To:	arun@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc:	Joel Schopp <jschopp@...tin.ibm.com>,
	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
	Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Vaidyanathan Srinivasan <svaidy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Dipankar Sarma <dipankar@...ibm.com>,
	Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Gautham R Shenoy <ego@...ibm.com>,
	"Pallipadi, Venkatesh" <venkatesh.pallipadi@...el.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4]: CPUIDLE: Introduce architecture independent
 cpuidle_pm_idle in drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle.c

On Fri, 2009-08-28 at 10:19 +0530, Arun R Bharadwaj wrote:
> 
> 
> This only does the job of picking the right idle loop for current
> latency and power requirement. This is already done in ladder/menu
> governors under the routines menu_select()/ladder_select().
> I'm not sure whats the purpose of it here.

I can't seem to find ladder_select() but menu_select() doesn't manage
pm_idle and its not clear what it does manage.

> Here we are only concerned about the main idle loop, which is
> pm_idle/ppc_md.power_save. After setting the main idle loop to
> cpuidle_pm_idle, that would call cpuidle_idle_call() which would do
> the job of picking the right low level idle loop based on latency and
> other requirements.

It also gets pm_idle unexported and avoids anybody directly tinkering
with the function pointer, _that_ is the whole goal.

pm_idle is it exists today, and the whole cpuidle_{un,}install*() is
utter crap. It relies on unmanaged access to this function pointer.

/me stop looking at drivers/cpuidle/, convoluted mess that is, shame on
you for wanting to have anything to do with it.



--
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/