linux-kernel - Re: [RFC, v2] powerpc/powernv: Introduce kernel param to control fastsleep workaround behavior

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: <1426585198.4770.23.camel@kernel.crashing.org>
Date:	Tue, 17 Mar 2015 20:39:58 +1100
From:	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
To:	Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>
Cc:	"Shreyas B. Prabhu" <shreyas@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
	linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [RFC, v2] powerpc/powernv: Introduce kernel param to control
 fastsleep workaround behavior

On Tue, 2015-03-17 at 19:57 +1100, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> 
> So my first preference is that you just bite the bullet and decide to either
> always apply the workaround, or just stick with the current behaviour. That's a
> trade-off between (I think) better idle latency but a risk of checkstops, vs.
> slower idle latency but less (how much less?) risk of checkstops.
> 
> I think the reason you're proposing a kernel parameter is because we aren't
> willing to make that decision, ie. we're saying that users should decide. Is
> that right?

Correct. More specifically, a fairly high profile user that I will not
name here has expressed interest in such a feature...

> I'm not a big fan of kernel parameters. They are a pain to use, and are often
> just pushing a decision down one layer for no reason. What I mean is that
> individual users are probably just going to accept whatever the default value
> is from their distro.

Right. This is quite an obscure tunable.

> But anyway, that's a bit of a rant.
> 
> As far as this patch is concerned, I don't think it actually needs to be a
> kernel parameter.
> 
> >From what I can see below, the decision as to whether you apply the workaround
> or not doesn't affect the list of idle states. So this could just as well be a
> runtime parameter, ie. a sysfs file, which can then be set by the user whenever
> they like? They might do it in a boot script, but that's up to them.

Right, that would work too.

> For simplicity I think it would also be fine to make it a write-once parameter,
> ie. you don't need to handle undoing it.

It would be easy enough to make it rw using stop machine I think... 

> I think the only complication that would add is that you'd need to be a little
> careful about the order in which you nop out the calls vs applying the
> workaround, in case some threads are idle when you're called.

I wouldn't bother with NOP'ing in that case, a runtime test will probably be noise
in the measurement.

Cheers,
Ben.


--
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/