linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Extend mwait idle to optimize away CAL and RES interrupts to an idle CPU -v1

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: <CABeCy1a7RszUWBV10tVbdsxAdPpQAMSQXw-pMG2znTqYb5WN5A@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 1 Mar 2012 18:00:51 -0800
From:	Venki Pallipadi <venki@...gle.com>
To:	Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Aaron Durbin <adurbin@...gle.com>,
	Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
	Yong Zhang <yong.zhang0@...il.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Extend mwait idle to optimize away CAL and RES interrupts
 to an idle CPU -v1

On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 5:37 PM, Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-03-01 at 17:35 -0800, Venki Pallipadi wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 5:28 PM, Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com> wrote:
>> > On Thu, 2012-03-01 at 16:33 -0800, Venki Pallipadi wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > fork_idle() should also make sure it does not schedule the child
>> >> > thread: thus we'd also be able to further simplify smpboot.c and
>> >> > get rid of all that extremely ugly 'struct create_idle'
>> >> > gymnastics in smpboot.c.
>> >>
>> >> But not this. I am not sure where fork_idle results in resched of the child.
>> >> As I saw it, fork_idle calls init_idle and that sets the affinity of
>> >> idle_task to target CPU. So, reschedule should not be a problem. What
>> >> am I missing here?
>> >
>> > I think Ingo is referring to the fact that we can't use kthread_create()
>> > here and hence we were relying on fork_idle().
>> >
>> >> Also, I tried this silly test patch (Cut and paste... Sorry) and it
>> >> seemed to work fine both with and without CPU hotplug.
>> >>
>> >
>> > I don't think we can do this today, as we need to make sure we have the
>> > correct current context. With dynamic cpu hotplug, current context can
>> > be any process and hence we were depending on the schedule_work()
>> > context.
>> >
>>
>> schedule_work() is only done at boot time. In case of dynamic cpu
>> hotplug, we skip the whole fork_idle as we already have the task
>> struct and just do init_idle().
>>
>
> What happens if we boot with "maxcpus=" and later online the remaining
> cpu's?

Yes. This case will be problematic. So, we still need struct
create_idle work stuff even after percpu idle_task. Or was Ingo's
suggestion to do something along the lines of - init any CPU's idle
task from CPU 0's idle task?

> same issue with the physical cpu-online case too right?
Any fresh online at runtime. Yes.

>
> thanks,
> suresh
>
--
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/