linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 8/8] intel_idle: create a native cpuidle driver for select intel processors

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: <alpine.LFD.2.00.1005272354100.24823@localhost.localdomain>
Date:	Thu, 27 May 2010 23:57:42 -0400 (EDT)
From:	Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	x86@...nel.org, linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 8/8] intel_idle: create a native cpuidle driver for select
 intel processors


> ... What happens when an additional CPU is brought online? 
> It melts?  ;)

With the current driver, processors hot-added after modprobe
will use C1 only, and not use deeper C-states.

Taking online processors offline and bringing them back online
(like we do during suspend) works fine.

> > +		dev->cpu = i;
> > +		if (cpuidle_register_device(dev)) {
> > +			pr_debug(PREFIX "cpuidle_register_device %d failed!\n", i);
> > +			free_percpu(intel_idle_cpuidle_devices);
> > +			return -EIO;
> 
> Should this unregister all the thus-far-registered devices?

yes, that was a bug!

thanks,
Len Brown, Intel Open Source Technology Center

--
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/