linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/3] coupled cpuidle state support

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: <CAMbhsRSNTUvou9Gf6T4Ggq=jfxsWUcn7M2yNsKQz6aNrt6gLDg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 21 Dec 2011 01:55:13 -0800
From:	Colin Cross <ccross@...roid.com>
To:	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
	Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>, Kevin Hilman <khilman@...com>,
	Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@...com>,
	Amit Kucheria <amit.kucheria@...aro.org>,
	Trinabh Gupta <g.trinabh@...il.com>,
	Deepthi Dharwar <deepthi@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	linux-omap@...r.kernel.org, linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] coupled cpuidle state support

On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 1:44 AM, Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> On 12/21/2011 10:40 AM, Colin Cross wrote:
>
>>> this smells fundamentally racey to me; you can get an interrupt one
>>> cycle after you think you're done, but before the last guy enters WFI...
>>>
>>> how do you solve that issue ?
>>
>> All the cpus have interrupts off when they increment the counter, so
>> they cannot receive an interrupt.  If an interrupt is pending on one
>> of those cpus, it will be handled later when WFI aborts due to the
>> pending interrupt.
>
> ... but this leads to cases where you're aborting before other cpus are
> entering..... so your "last guy in" doesn't really work, since while cpu
> 0 thinks it's the last guy, cpu 1 is already on the way out/out
> already...  (heck it might already be going back to sleep if your idle
> code can run fast, like in the size of a cache miss)

Once a cpu has incremented the counter, it has no way out unless either
1: another cpu (that hasn't incremented the counter yet) receives an
interrupt, aborts idle, and clears its idle flag
or
2: all cpus enter the ready counter, and call the cpuidle driver's
enter function.

In your example, cpu 1 has incremented the counter, so it cannot be on
the way out unless cpu 0 aborts (in which case it will not increment
the counter, and the counter will never be equal to the number of
cpus), or unless cpu 0 turns off its interrupts and incrementes the
counter (in which case neither cpu can return until after the cpuidle
driver's enter function has been called on all cpus).
--
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/