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: <CAJZ5v0hZXq1-bWBg8K6dK4UcF98HRyXRay88x2e1UxsfSAunSw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 4 Oct 2017 22:18:22 +0200
From:   "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:     "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
        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,
        David Matlack <dmatlack@...gle.com>,
        Alexander Graf <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, Oct 4, 2017 at 9:56 AM, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
> 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.

Well, I agree.

Thanks,
Rafael