linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC hack dont apply] intel

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: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1710040955450.1878@nanos>
Date:   Wed, 4 Oct 2017 09:56:42 +0200 (CEST)
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:     "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
cc:     Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
        Yang Zhang <yang.zhang.wz@...il.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        kvm@...r.kernel.org, Wanpeng Li <wanpeng.li@...mail.com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>, rkrcmar@...hat.com,
        dmatlack@...gle.com, agraf@...e.de,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
        Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC hack dont apply] intel_idle: support running within
 a VM

On Wed, 4 Oct 2017, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 03, 2017 at 11:02:55PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > There is the series from Audrey which makes use of the various idle
> > prediction mechanisms, scheduler, irq timings, idle governor to get an idea
> > about the estimated idle time. Exactly this information can be fed to the
> > kvmidle driver which can act accordingly.
> > 
> > Hacking a random hardware specific idle driver is definitely the wrong
> > approach. It might be useful to chain the kvmidle driver and hardware
> > specific drivers at some point, i.e. if the kvmdriver decides not to exit
> > it delegates the mwait decision to the proper hardware driver in order not
> > to reimplement all the required logic again.
> 
> By making changes to idle core to allow that chaining?
> Does this sound like something reasonable?

At least for me it makes sense to avoid code duplication. But thats up to
the cpuidle maintainers to decide at the end.

Thanks,

	tglx