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  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:	Sat, 19 Jul 2014 13:31:25 -0400 (EDT)
From:	Nicolas Pitre <>
To:	Frederic Weisbecker <>
cc:	LKML <>,
	Ingo Molnar <>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <>,
	Peter Zijlstra <>,
	Steven Rostedt <>,
	Thomas Gleixner <>,
	Viresh Kumar <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/10] nohz: Enforce timekeeping on CPU 0

On Sat, 19 Jul 2014, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:

> The timekeeper gets initialized to the value of the CPU where the
> first clockevent device is setup. This works well because the timekeeper
> can be any online CPU in most configs.
> Full dynticks has its own requirement though and needs the timekeeper
> to always be 0. And this requirement seem to accomodate pretty well with
> the above described boot timekeeper setting because the first clockevent
> device happens to be initialized, most of the time, on the boot CPU
> (which should be CPU 0).

This might have been discussed before... but this isn't ARM big.LITTLE 
friendly at all.

Could we accommodate for any arbitrary CPU instead of making CPU 0 
"special" other than its role as the boot CPU please?  It doesn't have 
to be completely dynamic, but CPU 0 might be a really bad choice for 
ongoing periodic duties in some configurations.  For example, we might 
highly prefer to do this on CPU 4 for power efficiency reasons once it 
is online and keep CPU 0 in a deep C-state as much as possible.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists