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

Date:	Tue, 12 Oct 2010 15:12:30 -0700
From:	Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com>
To:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...hat.com, hpa@...or.com,
	mingo@...e.hu, linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [tip:irq/core] x86: Sanitize apb timer interrupt handling

Thomas Gleixner Tue, 12 Oct 2010 23:28:19 +0200 (CEST)
>On Tue, 12 Oct 2010, Jacob Pan wrote:
>
>> 
>> >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?
>
>Errm. I merily moved it to the place where it should be. You do the
>disable/enable dance already today.
>
I think I only do disable/enable at the timer HW level today during cpu hp
notification, not calling disable_irq(). Am i missing something?

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/