linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] clockevents: Prefer clockevents that don't suffer from FEAT_C3

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:	Thu, 22 Aug 2013 17:06:36 -0400
From:	Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@...com>
To:	Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>
CC:	Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
	Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
	<srinivas.kandagatla@...com>,
	Michal Simek <michal.simek@...inx.com>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Stuart Menefy <stuart.menefy@...com>,
	John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
	S?ren Brinkmann <soren.brinkmann@...inx.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] clockevents: Prefer clockevents that don't suffer
 from FEAT_C3_STOP

On Thursday 22 August 2013 02:31 PM, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> On 08/22, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
>> On Thursday 22 August 2013 01:40 PM, Stephen Boyd wrote:
>>> On 08/22/13 10:33, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
>>>> On Thursday 22 August 2013 01:06 PM, Stephen Boyd wrote:
>>>>> On some ARM systems there are two sets of per-cpu timers: the TWD
>>>>> timers and the global timers. The TWD timers are rated at 350 and
>>>>> the global timers are rated at 300 but the TWD timers suffer from
>>>>> FEAT_C3_STOP while the arm global timers don't. The tick device
>>>>> selection logic doesn't consider the FEAT_C3_STOP flag so we'll
>>>>> always end up with the TWD as the tick device although we don't
>>>>> want that.
>>>>>
>>>>> Extend the preference logic to take the FEAT_C3_STOP flag into
>>>>> account and always prefer tick devices that don't suffer from
>>>>> FEAT_C3_STOP even if their rating is lower than tick devices that
>>>>> do suffer from FEAT_C3_STOP. This will remove the need to do any
>>>>> broadcasting on such ARM systems.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>  kernel/time/tick-common.c | 14 ++++++++++++--
>>>>>  1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/kernel/time/tick-common.c b/kernel/time/tick-common.c
>>>>> index 64522ec..3ae437d 100644
>>>>> --- a/kernel/time/tick-common.c
>>>>> +++ b/kernel/time/tick-common.c
>>>>> @@ -244,12 +244,22 @@ static bool tick_check_preferred(struct clock_event_device *curdev,
>>>>>  			return false;
>>>>>  	}
>>>>>  
>>>>> +	if (!curdev)
>>>>> +		return true;
>>>>> +
>>>>> +	/* Always prefer a tick device that doesn't suffer from FEAT_C3STOP */
>>>>> +	if (!(newdev->features & CLOCK_EVT_FEAT_C3STOP) &&
>>>>> +			(curdev->features & CLOCK_EVT_FEAT_C3STOP))
>>>>> +		return true;
>>>>> +	if ((newdev->features & CLOCK_EVT_FEAT_C3STOP) &&
>>>>> +			!(curdev->features & CLOCK_EVT_FEAT_C3STOP))
>>>>> +		return false;
>>>>> +
>>>> I don't think preferring the clock-event which doesn't suffer
>>>> from FEAT_C3STOP is a good idea if the quality of the time source
>>>> is not same. Generally the global timers are slow and far away from
>>>> CPU(cycle cost). So as long as we don't get impacted because of low power
>>>> states, the tick should run out of local timers which are faster access
>>>> as well as high resolution.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Fair enough. I have no data either way to convince anyone that this is a
>>> good or bad idea so this patch should have probably been an RFC. Are you
>>> hinting at something like switching to a per-cpu timer that doesn't
>>> suffer from FEAT_C3_STOP when a CPU goes into a deep idle state?
>>> Interesting idea but I think I'll leave that to someone else if they
>>> really care to do that.
>>>
>> If the per-CPU timer don't suffer from C3_STOP, there is no need to
>> switch at all and the per CPU tick continue to runs on CPU local
>> timers. We need to switch to a broadcast device(no affected by C3_STOP)
>> only for the cases where the per-CPU timer wakeup don't work in CPU
>> low power states.
>>
>> Are we talking about a hardware where one of the CPU from a cluster
>> has a local timer which is not affected by C3_STOP where as rest
>> of the CPU local timers are ? If yes, it must be crazy hardware and
>> we should not care too much about that.
> 
> We're talking about a device with the TWD and the arm global
> timers where each CPU has a TWD and an arm global timer and the
> TWD stops during deep idle but the global timer doesn't.
> Put another way, two timers per CPU where one doesn't work all
> the time.
> 
This global timer is really not global timer then since its
per CPU. So in this case, you don't need to use TWD's and
hence no need of broadcast. You should rather not register the
TWD's since you have better per-CPU timer which is alive in
the low power states as well and hence that should be registered
as a per CPU clock-event. If the current ARM timer code
doesn't support this, it should be enhanced to be able to
achieve above.

Regards,
Santosh





--
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/