linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v1 00/11] Create fast idle path for short idle periods

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20170720160251.GP3730@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:   Thu, 20 Jul 2017 09:02:51 -0700
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     "Li, Aubrey" <aubrey.li@...ux.intel.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
        Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
        Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
        Aubrey Li <aubrey.li@...el.com>, len.brown@...el.com,
        rjw@...ysocki.net, tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com,
        arjan@...ux.intel.com, yang.zhang.wz@...il.com, x86@...nel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, daniel.lezcano@...aro.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v1 00/11] Create fast idle path for short idle periods

On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 04:19:40PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 05:50:54AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > 
> > > static void cpuidle_idle_call()
> > > {
> > > 	rcu_idle_enter()
> > > 	......
> > > 	rcu_idle_exit()
> > > }
> > > 
> > > I want
> > > 
> > > static void cpuidle_idle_call()
> > > {
> > > 	if (tick stopped)
> > > 		rcu_idle_enter()
> > > 	......
> > > 	if (tick stopped)
> > > 		rcu_idle_exit()
> > > }
> > >
> > > Or checking tick stop can be put into rcu_idle_enter/exit
> > 
> > The answer is the traditional "it depends".
> > 
> > If the above change was all that you did, that would be a bug in the
> > case where the predicted short idle time turned out to in reality be an
> > indefinite idle time. 
> 
> Can't be, you didn't disable the tick after all, so you're guaranteed to
> get interrupted by the tick and try again.

I will reserve judgment on that until I see the patch.  But to your point,
I would indeed hope that it works that way.  ;-)

							Thanx, Paul