linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V4 2/3] tick/cpuidle: Initialize hrtimer mode of broadcast

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: <52FA9DAE.1040603@linaro.org>
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/