linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/3] cpuidle: updates related to tick_broadcast

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]

Date:	Tue, 12 May 2015 01:13:45 +0200
From:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
To:	Preeti U Murthy <preeti@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	peterz@...radead.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
	rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com, daniel.lezcano@...aro.org,
	rlippert@...gle.com, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
	linus.walleij@...aro.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	mingo@...hat.com, sudeep.holla@....com,
	linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] cpuidle: updates related to tick_broadcast_enter() failures

On Monday, May 11, 2015 10:51:02 AM Preeti U Murthy wrote:
> On 05/10/2015 04:45 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Saturday, May 09, 2015 10:33:05 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >> On Saturday, May 09, 2015 10:11:41 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >>> On Saturday, May 09, 2015 11:19:16 AM Preeti U Murthy wrote:
> >>>> Hi Rafael,
> >>>>
> >>>> On 05/08/2015 07:48 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >>>
> >>> [cut]
> >>>
> >>>>>>  
> >>>>>> +	/* Take note of the planned idle state. */
> >>>>>> +	idle_set_state(smp_processor_id(), target_state);
> >>>>>
> >>>>> And I wouldn't do this either.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The behavior here is pretty much as though the driver demoted the state chosen
> >>>>> by the governor and we don't call idle_set_state() again in those cases.
> >>>>
> >>>> Why is this wrong?
> >>>
> >>> It is not "wrong", but incomplete, because demotions done by the cpuidle driver
> >>> should also be taken into account in the same way.
> >>>
> >>> But I'm seeing that the recent patch of mine that made cpuidle_enter_state()
> >>> call default_idle_call() was a mistake, because it might confuse find_idlest_cpu()
> >>> significantly as to what state the CPU is in.  I'll drop that one for now.
> >>
> >> OK, done.
> >>
> >> So after I've dropped it I think we need to do three things:
> >> (1) Move the idle_set_state() calls to cpuidle_enter_state().
> >> (2) Make cpuidle_enter_state() call default_idle_call() again, but this time
> >>     do that *before* it has called idle_set_state() for target_state.
> >> (3) Introduce demotion as per my last patch.
> >>
> >> Let me cut patches for that.
> > 
> > Done as per the above and the patches follow in replies to this messge.
> > 
> > All on top of the current linux-next branch of the linux-pm.git tree.
> 
> The patches look good. Based and tested these patches on top of
> linux-pm/linux-next (They are not yet in the branch as far as I can see.)

They aren't in the tree yet.  I'll put them in there later today.

> All patches in this series
> Reviewed and Tested-by: Preeti U Murthy <preeti@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>

Thanks!

--
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/