| 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: Thu, 05 Mar 2015 07:50:26 +0800 From: "Li, Aubrey" <aubrey.li@...ux.intel.com> To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> CC: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Alan Cox <alan@...ux.intel.com>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Linux PM list <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>, ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>, Kristen Carlson Accardi <kristen@...ux.intel.com>, John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>, Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/6] intel_idle: Add ->enter_freeze callbacks On 2015/2/13 0:24, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Thursday, February 12, 2015 02:26:43 PM Peter Zijlstra wrote: >> >> Why bother with enter_freeze() for any but the deepest state (C6 in this >> case)? > > User space may disable the deepest one (and any of them in general) via sysfs > and there's no good reason to ignore its choice in this particular case while > we're honoring it otherwise. > > So the logic is basically "find the deepest one which isn't disabled" and > setting the pointers costs us nothing really. > If the user has chance to disable C6 via /sys, that means c6 works? Shouldn't we ignore user space setting during freeze? Otherwise, we will lost S0ix? Thanks, -Aubrey -- 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