linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH V3 2/3] cpuidle: list based cpuidle driver registration and selection

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <20110210171603.GA6970@dirshya.in.ibm.com>
Date:	Thu, 10 Feb 2011 22:46:03 +0530
From:	Vaidyanathan Srinivasan <svaidy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	Trinabh Gupta <trinabh@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, arjan@...ux.intel.com,
	lenb@...nel.org, suresh.b.siddha@...el.com,
	benh@...nel.crashing.org, venki@...gle.com, ak@...ux.intel.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH V3 2/3] cpuidle: list based cpuidle driver
 registration and selection

* Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> [2011-02-10 10:53:30]:

> On Thu, 2011-02-10 at 12:30 +0530, Vaidyanathan Srinivasan wrote:
> 
> > We discussed this in the previous posts.  On ppc64 we would like to
> > have single global registration, but for x86 Arjan recommended that we
> > keep the per-cpu registration or else we may break legacy or buggy
> > devices.
> > 
> > Ref: http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/10/7/210
> > 
> > One corner case that was against using lowest common C-State is that
> > we could have cores/packages sporting a new lower C-State if they are
> > at a thermal limit and want the OS to go to much lower C-State and
> > sacrifice performance.  Our global design will prevent that cpu from
> > going to a state lower than the rest of the system.
> > 
> > This is only a remote possibility, but could happen on battery
> > operated devices, under low battery mode etc.  Basically we would have
> > to keep our design open to allow individual CPUs to goto 'their'
> > deepest allowed sleep state even in a asymmetric case.
> 
> 
> But but but, its a stupid ACPI bug if it reports different C states for
> different CPUs.
> 
> Len, does intel_idle also suffer this or does it simply ignore what ACPI
> has to say?
> 
> Also, suppose for some daft reason it doesn't report C2 as available on
> one of the CPUs, what happens if we use it anyway? (ie, use the union of
> the reported states).
 
Using a union of available C-States on all CPUs will take care of the
above mentioned (buggy) case and generally simplify the registration
mechanism.  This implies that a cpu is allowed to use any of the
registered ACPI C-States across the system.

--Vaidy
 
--
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/