linux-kernel - Re: [tip:irq/core] x86: Sanitize apb timer interrupt handling

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 12 Oct 2010 14:20:00 -0700
From:	Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com>
To:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...hat.com, hpa@...or.com,
	tglx@...utronix.de, jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com, mingo@...e.hu
Cc:	linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [tip:irq/core] x86: Sanitize apb timer interrupt handling


>x86: Sanitize apb timer interrupt handling
>
>Disable the interrupt in CPU_DEAD where it belongs.
My main concern is the performance cost. The power management code for
Moorestown system make use of the cpu hotplug code (disable_nonboot_cpus)
but much more frequently. The system low power states are call S0 idle
state (s0ix).

Leaving the irq enabled at the chip and desc level between S0ix states
might give some performance benefit. That was my original thought.
Will it cause problems?

Thanks,

Jacob

--
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/