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:	Mon, 10 Nov 2014 16:28:03 +0100
From:	Peter Zijlstra <>
To:	Daniel Lezcano <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 2/6] sched: idle: cpuidle: Check the latency req
 before idle

On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 04:12:47PM +0100, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> All this is to remove the poll idle state from the x86 cpuidle driver in
> order to remove the CPUIDLE_DRIVER_STATE_START (this one forces to write
> always ugly code in the cpuidle framework).
> This poll state introduces the CPUIDLE_DRIVER_STATE_START macro. If you look
> at the different governors and the code, you can checkout what kind of
> tricks this macro introduces and how that makes the code ugly.
> For the sake of what ? Just a small optimization in the menu governor.
> I suppose that has been introduce and then evolved on a wrong basis. So now
> we have to deal with that.
> This patchset provides a first round of cleanup around the poll function,
> the next patchset will move the 5us timer optimization from the menu
> governor and the last patchset will remove the CPUIDLE_DRIVER_STATE_START
> ugly macro.

I don't get it, I've clearly not stared at it long enough, but why is
that STATE_START crap needed anywhere?

To me it appears 'natural' to have a latency_req==0 state, why does it
need so much special casing?
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