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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 23:01:18 +0100 From: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org> To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> CC: Preeti U Murthy <preeti@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, peterz@...radead.org, benh@...nel.crashing.org, rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, mingo@...nel.org, deepthi@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, fweisbec@...il.com, paulus@...ba.org, srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, svaidy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com Subject: Re: [PATCH V4 2/3] tick/cpuidle: Initialize hrtimer mode of broadcast On 02/11/2014 04:58 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Tue, 11 Feb 2014, Daniel Lezcano wrote: >> On 02/07/2014 09:06 AM, Preeti U Murthy wrote: >> Setting the smp affinity on the earliest timer should be handled automatically >> with the CLOCK_EVT_FEAT_DYNIRQ flag. Did you look at using this flag ? > > How should this flag help? Not at all, because the hrtimer based > broadcast device cannot assign affinities. > >> Another comment is the overall approach. We enter the cpuidle idle framework >> with a specific state to go to and it is the tick framework telling us we >> mustn't go to this state. IMO the logic is wrong, the decision to not enter >> this state should be moved somewhere else. >> >> Why don't you create a cpuidle driver with the shallow idle states assigned to >> a cpu (let's say cpu0) and another one with all the deeper idle states for the >> rest of the cpus ? Using the multiple cpuidle driver support makes it >> possible. The timer won't be moving around and a cpu will be dedicated to act >> as the broadcast timer. >> >> Wouldn't make sense and be less intrusive than the patchset you proposed ? > > How do you arm the broadcast timer on CPU0 from CPU1? You can't! > > You cannot access the cpu local timer on a different cpu. So you would > have to send an IPI over to CPU0 so that it can reevaluate and > schedule the broadcast. That's even more backwards than telling the > cpuidle code that the CPU is not in a state to go deep. Indeed :) Thanks for the clarification. -- Daniel -- <http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook | <http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter | <http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists