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: Mon, 10 Nov 2014 20:48:20 +0100 From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> To: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org> Cc: rjw@...ysocki.net, preeti@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, nicolas.pitre@...aro.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org, patches@...aro.org, lenb@...nel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 2/6] sched: idle: cpuidle: Check the latency req before idle On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 06:19:02PM +0100, Daniel Lezcano wrote: > >I really don't get why the governors should know about this though, its > >just another state, they should iterate all states and pick the best, > >given the power usage this state should really never be eligible unless > >we're QoS forced or whatnot. > > The governors just don't use the poll state at all, except for a couple of > cases in menu.c defined above in the previous email. What is the rational of > adding a state in the cpuidle driver and do everything we can to avoid using > it ? From my POV, the poll state is a special state, we should remove from > the driver's idle states like the arch_cpu_idle() is a specific idle state > only used in idle.c (but which may overlap with an idle state in different > archs eg. cpu_do_idle() and the 0th idle state). So I disagree, I think poll-idle is an idle mode just like all the others. It should be an available state to the governor and it should treat it like any other. I don't tihnk the whole ARCH_HAS_CPU_RELAX thing makes any kind of sense, _every_ arch has some definition of it, the generic polling loop is always a valid idle implementation. What we can do is always populate the idle state table with it before calling the regular drivers. If the arch drivers have a 'better' latency_req==0 idle routine -- note my argument on the ppc issue, I think its wrong -- it can replace the existing one. We should further remove all the special casing in the governors, its always a valid state, but it should hardly ever be the most desirable state. I think the whole arch specific idle loop is a mistake, we already have an (arch) interface into the idle routines, we don't need yet another. -- 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