linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 7/8] ACPI: acpi_idle: touch TS

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: <AANLkTikRUyXMcIkqc3dRCtLPkKBOwOeyy_j1iILHeypj@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Fri, 28 May 2010 09:19:22 -0700
From:	Venkatesh Pallipadi <venki@...gle.com>
To:	Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>
Cc:	linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/8] ACPI: acpi_idle: touch TS_POLLING only in the 
	non-MWAIT case

On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 11:02 PM, Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org> wrote:
> From: Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>
>
> commit d306ebc28649b89877a22158fe0076f06cc46f60
> (ACPI: Be in TS_POLLING state during mwait based C-state entry)
> fixed an important power & performance issue where ACPI c2 and c3 C-states
> were clearing TS_POLLING even when using MWAIT (ACPI_STATE_FFH).
> That bug had been causing us to receive redundant scheduling interrups
> when we had already been woken up by MONITOR/MWAIT.
>
> Following up on that...
>
> In the MWAIT case, we don't have to subsequently
> check need_resched(), as that c heck was there
> for the TS_POLLING-clearing case.
>
> Note that not only does the cpuidle calling function
> already check need_resched() before calling us, the
> low-level entry into monitor/mwait calls it twice --
> guaranteeing that a write to the trigger address
> can not go un-noticed.

Ack this part of the change.

> Also, in this case, we don't have to set TS_POLLING
> when we wake, because we never cleared it.

I thought about this part of the change while working on the original
patch. But decided to leave the set to be done unconditionally as in
this case we are replacing "one write" by either "one read and one
jump" or "one read and one write" and I am not sure we gain much by
that.

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/