linux-kernel - Re: 9908859acaa9 cpuidle/menu: add per CPU PM QoS resume latency consideration

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: <1487855304.4463.50.camel@gmx.de>
Date:   Thu, 23 Feb 2017 14:08:24 +0100
From:   Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
To:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        Alex Shi <alex.shi@...aro.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: 9908859acaa9 cpuidle/menu: add per CPU PM QoS resume latency
 consideration

On Thu, 2017-02-23 at 13:15 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 22, 2017 10:55:04 PM Alex Shi wrote:
> > > 
> > > Its not hard; spinlock_t ends up being a mutex, and this is ran
> > > from the
> > > idle thread. What thread do you think we ought to run when we
> > > block
> > > idle?
> > > 
> > 
> > Straight right.
> > Thanks for explanations! :)
> 
> I overlooked that, sorry.
> 
> Shall we revert?
> 
> I don't want RT to be broken because of this.

Just whacking the lock would take care of that.  The question is who is
gonna use this, and what does it really buy them?  When I look at that
commit, an eyebrow raises, lock or no lock.

	-Mike