linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/7] idle, thermal, acpi: Remove home grown idle implementations

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: <20131121160716.GT4138@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:	Thu, 21 Nov 2013 08:07:16 -0800
From:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com>,
	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>, lenb@...nel.org,
	rjw@...ysocki.net, Eliezer Tamir <eliezer.tamir@...ux.intel.com>,
	Chris Leech <christopher.leech@...el.com>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, rui.zhang@...el.com,
	Mike Galbraith <bitbucket@...ine.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, hpa@...or.com,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/7] idle, thermal, acpi: Remove home grown idle
 implementations

On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 09:21:51AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 04:54:06PM -0800, Jacob Pan wrote:
> > On Wed, 20 Nov 2013 17:04:53 +0100
> > Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> > 
> > > People are starting to grow their own idle implementations in various
> > > disgusting ways. Collapse the lot and use the generic idle code to
> > > provide a proper idle cycle implementation.
> > > 
> > +Paul
> > 
> > RCU and others rely on is_idle_task() might be broken with the
> > consolidated idle code since caller of do_idle may have pid != 0.
> > 
> > Should we use TS_POLL or introduce a new flag to identify idle task?
> 
> PF_IDLE would be my preference, I checked and we seem to have a grand
> total of 2 unused task_struct::flags left ;-)

As long as RCU has some reliable way to identify an idle task, I am
good.  But I have to ask -- why can't idle injection coordinate with
the existing idle tasks rather than temporarily making alternative
idle tasks?

							Thanx, Paul

> > The reason why idle injection code does not inform RCU is that we have
> > known short period of idle time which does not impact RCU grace period.
> > 
> > On the other side, I see idle injection code is working with this
> > patchset with workaround in s_idle_task() by checking TS_POLL flag.
> > But the efficiency is down by ~30%. i.e.
> > 
> > before: inject 25% time to get 23-24% package idle
> > after: inject 25% time to get 16-17% package idle
> > 
> > Still looking into improvement.
> 
> So the quick hack is to make acpi_idle/intel_idle use the highest
> possible C-state when pid!=0 && PF_IDLE.
> 
> Ideally though I'd see some of the QoS ramifications explored. Because
> forcing the CPU into the highest C-state basically invalidates the
> entire QoS stack.
> 
> So either make QoS and this idle injection stuff mutually exclusive in a
> very explicit way -- disable the QoS interface when you enable one of
> these idle injectors AND fail to engage the idle injectors when an
> incompatible QoS setting is pre-existing.
> 
> Or come up with something smarter.
> 
> You also have to explore the case of higher priority tasks messing with
> the proper operation of your injectors, this one is harder to deal with.
> 

--
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/