linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] Improving udelay/ndelay on platforms where that is possible

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:   Thu, 16 Nov 2017 11:08:11 -0500 (EST)
From:   Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@...aro.org>
To:     Marc Gonzalez <marc_gonzalez@...madesigns.com>
cc:     Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Alan Cox <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
        Douglas Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        Jonathan Austin <jonathan.austin@....com>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Kevin Hilman <khilman@...nel.org>,
        Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>,
        Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>,
        Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...e-electrons.com>,
        Thibaud Cornic <thibaud_cornic@...madesigns.com>,
        Mason <slash.tmp@...e.fr>
Subject: Re: [RFC] Improving udelay/ndelay on platforms where that is
 possible

On Thu, 16 Nov 2017, Marc Gonzalez wrote:

> On 16/11/2017 16:36, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 04:26:51PM +0100, Marc Gonzalez wrote:
> >> On 15/11/2017 14:13, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> >>
> >>> udelay() needs to offer a consistent interface so that drivers know
> >>> what to expect no matter what the implementation is.  Making one
> >>> implementation conform to your ideas while leaving the other
> >>> implementations with other expectations is a recipe for bugs.
> >>>
> >>> If you really want to do this, fix the loops_per_jiffy implementation
> >>> as well so that the consistency is maintained.
> >>
> >> Hello Russell,
> >>
> >> It seems to me that, when using DFS, there's a serious issue with loop-based
> >> delays. (IIRC, it was you who pointed this out a few years ago.)
> >>
> >> If I'm reading arch/arm/kernel/smp.c correctly, loops_per_jiffy is scaled
> >> when the frequency changes.
> >>
> >> But arch/arm/lib/delay-loop.S starts by loading the current value of
> >> loops_per_jiffy, computes the number of times to loop, and then loops.
> >> If the frequency increases when the core is in __loop_delay, the
> >> delay will be much shorter than requested.
> >>
> >> Is this a correct assessment of the situation?
> > 
> > Absolutely correct, and it's something that people are aware of, and
> > have already catered for while writing their drivers.
> 
> In their cpufreq driver?
> In "real" device drivers that happen to use delays?
> 
> On my system, the CPU frequency may ramp up from 120 MHz to 1.2 GHz.
> If the frequency increases at the beginning of __loop_delay, udelay(100)
> would spin only 10 microseconds. This is likely to cause issues in
> any driver using udelay.
> 
> How does one cater for that?

You make sure your delays are based on a stable hardware timer.
Most platforms nowdays should have a suitable timer source.


Nicolas