linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] X86/CPU: Avoid 100ms sleep for cpu offline during S3

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: <53E33F4D.7080701@intel.com>
Date:	Thu, 07 Aug 2014 16:56:45 +0800
From:	Lan Tianyu <tianyu.lan@...el.com>
To:	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
CC:	"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	"mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
	"hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>, "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
	"toshi.kani@...com" <toshi.kani@...com>,
	"imammedo@...hat.com" <imammedo@...hat.com>,
	"jan.kiszka@...mens.com" <jan.kiszka@...mens.com>,
	"mingo@...nel.org" <mingo@...nel.org>,
	"huawei.libin@...wei.com" <huawei.libin@...wei.com>,
	"prarit@...hat.com" <prarit@...hat.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Brandt, Todd E" <todd.e.brandt@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] X86/CPU: Avoid 100ms sleep for cpu offline  during S3

On 2014年08月07日 00:06, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Wed, Aug 06, 2014 at 01:13:21PM +0000, Lan, Tianyu wrote:
>> Have you tried my attached kernel config file? When someone reported
>> the issue to me, I also was very hard to reproduce the issue by my
>> own config file. Maybe once 100 tries. But I can reproduced the issue
>> every time with the attached configure file on several my machines and
>> even on server.
> 
> first of all, please do not top-post:
> 
> A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
> Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
> A: Top-posting.
> Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?
> 

Hi Borislav:

Sorry. I replied on the Windows machines and ignored the format.I will
notice it. Thanks fro reminder.

> Now, it looks like the issue is timing-related, depending on when we're
> going to see CPU_DEAD, before or after the msleep. Thus, if some distro
> config runs more crap on the suspend path and we don't see the CPU_DEAD
> before we sleep for 100ms, then we get to wait at least once and it
> shows in the suspend trace.
> 
> So, using the completion timeout seems like a net improvement for such
> configs and thus for any config.

Yes, that's exact.

-- 
Best regards
Tianyu Lan
--
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/