linux-kernel - Re: [resend] Timer broadcast question

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

Message-ID: <512400B2.9010801@mit.edu>
Date:	Tue, 19 Feb 2013 14:46:10 -0800
From:	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To:	Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>
CC:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linaro-dev >> Lists Linaro-dev" <linaro-dev@...ts.linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [resend] Timer broadcast question

On 02/19/2013 10:21 AM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> On 02/19/2013 07:10 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> On Tue, 19 Feb 2013, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>>> I am working on identifying the different wakeup sources from the
>>> interrupts and I have a question regarding the timer broadcast.
>>>
>>> The broadcast timer is setup to the next event and that will wake up any
>>> idle cpu belonging to the "broadcast cpumask", right ?
>>>
>>> The cpu which has been woken up will look for each cpu the next-event
>>> and send an IPI to wake it up.
>>>  
>>> Although, it is possible the sender of this IPI may not be concerned by
>>> the timer expiration and has been woken up just for sending the IPI, right ?
>>
>> Correct.
>>  
>>> If this is correct, is it possible to setup the timer irq affinity to a
>>> cpu which will be concerned by the timer expiration ? so we prevent an
>>> unnecessary wake up for a cpu.
>>
>> It is possible, but we never implemented it.
>>
>> If we go there, we want to make that conditional on a property flag,
>> because some interrupt controllers especially on x86 only allow to
>> move the affinity from interrupt context, which is pointless.
> 
> Thanks Thomas for your quick answer. I will write a RFC patchset.

I'm curious what the use case is.  I played with this code awhile ago,
and AFAICT it's not used on sensible (i.e. modern) systems.  Is there
anything other than old x86 machines that needs it?

--Andy
--
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/