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]

Date:	Thu, 21 Nov 2013 16:10:05 -0800
From:	Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com>
To:	paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc:	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, 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, 21 Nov 2013 12:07:17 -0800
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 11:45:20AM -0800, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > On 11/21/2013 11:19 AM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > >On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 08:21:03AM -0800, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > >>On 11/21/2013 8:07 AM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > >>>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?
> > >>
> > >>it's not a real idle. that's the whole problem of the situation.
> > >>to the rest of the OS, this is being BUSY (busy saving power using
> > >>a CPU instruction, but it might as well have been an mdelay()
> > >>operation) and it's also what end users expect; they want to be
> > >>able to see where there performance (read: cpu time in "top") is
> > >>going.
> > >
> > >My concern is keeping RCU's books straight.  Suppose that there is
> > >a need to call for idle in the middle of a preemptible RCU
> > >read-side critical section.  Now, if that call for idle involves a
> > >context switch, all is well -- RCU will see the task as still
> > >being in its RCU read-side critical section, which means that it
> > >is OK for RCU to see the CPU as idle.
> > >
> > >However, if there is no context switch and RCU sees the CPU as
> > >idle, preemptible RCU could prematurely end the grace period.  If
> > >there is no context switch and RCU sees the CPU as non-idle for
> > >too long, we start getting RCU CPU stall warning splats.
> > >
> > >Another approach would be to only inject idle when the CPU is not
> > >doing anything that could possibly be in an RCU read-side critical
> > >section.  But things might get a bit hot in case of an overly
> > >long RCU read-side critical section.
> > >
> > >One approach that might work would be to hook into RCU's
> > >context-switch code going in and coming out, then telling RCU that
> > >the CPU is idle, even though top and friends see it as non-idle.
> > >This last is in fact similar to how RCU handles userspace
> > >execution for NO_HZ_FULL.
> > >
> > 
> > so powerclamp and such are not "idle".
> > They are "busy" from everything except the lowest level of the CPU
> > hardware. once you start thinking of them as idle, all hell breaks
> > lose in terms of implications (including sysadmin visibility
> > etc).... (hence some of the explosions in this thread as well).
> > 
> > but it's not "idle".
> > 
> > it's "put the cpu in a low power state for a specified amount of
> > time". sure it uses the same instruction to do so that the idle
> > loop uses.
> > 
> > (now to make it messy, the current driver does a bunch of things
> > similar to the idle loop which is a mess and fair to be complained
> > about)
> 
> Then from an RCU viewpoint, they need to be short in duration.
> Otherwise you risk getting CPU stall-warning explosions from RCU.  ;-)
> 
> 							Thanx, Paul
> 
currently powerclamp allow idle injection duration between 6 to 25ms.
I guess that is short considering the stall check is in seconds?
	return till_stall_check * HZ + RCU_STALL_DELAY_DELTA;

BTW, by forcing intel_idle to use deepest c-states for idle injection
thread the efficiency problem is gone. I am surprised that cpuidle
would not pick the deepest c-states given powerclamp driver is asking
for 6ms idle time and the wakeup latencies are in the usec.
Anyway, for what i have tested so far powerclamp with this patchset can
work as well as the code before.

> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pm" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

[Jacob Pan]
--
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/