linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V2] powercap/drivers/idle_injection: Add an idle injection framework

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: <20180515051241.xdrjj6u4ssqcatvy@vireshk-i7>
Date:   Tue, 15 May 2018 10:42:41 +0530
From:   Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To:     Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>
Cc:     rjw@...ysocki.net, edubezval@...il.com, kevin.wangtao@...aro.org,
        leo.yan@...aro.org, vincent.guittot@...aro.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, javi.merino@...nel.org,
        rui.zhang@...el.com, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
        daniel.thompson@...aro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] powercap/drivers/idle_injection: Add an idle
 injection framework

On 11-05-18, 13:55, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 03:02:21PM +0530, viresh kumar wrote:
> > On 10-05-18, 14:26, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> > > +int idle_injection_start(struct idle_injection_device *ii_dev)
> > > +{
> > > +	if (!atomic_read(&ii_dev->idle_duration_ms))
> > > +		return -EINVAL;
> > > +
> > > +	if (!atomic_read(&ii_dev->run_duration_ms))
> > > +		return -EINVAL;
> > 
> > You are required to have them as atomic variables to take care of the
> > races while they are set ? 
> 
> The race is when you change the values, while the idle injection is acting and
> you read those values in the idle injection thread function.
> 
> > What about getting the durations as arguments to this routine then ?
> 
> May be I missed your point but I don't think that will change the above.

Well, it can. Can you explain the kind of use-cases you have in mind ?

For example, what I assumed to be the usecase was:

idle_injection_start(iidev, idle_duration, run_duration);

and then at some point of time:

idle_injection_stop(iidev);


With this, you would be required to stop the idle injection stuff to
reconfigure the durations. And then you will never have a race which
you mentioned above.

What you are trying to do is something like this:

idle_injection_set_duration(idle_duration, run_duration);
idle_injection_start(iidev);

and then at some point of time:
idle_injection_set_duration(idle_duration2, run_duration2);

and then at some point of time:
idle_injection_stop(iidev);

I am not sure if we would ever want to do something like this. Or if
stopping the idle injection to start it again is that bad of an idea.

> > > +struct idle_injection_device *
> > > +idle_injection_register(struct cpumask *cpumask, const char *name)
> > > +{
> > > +	struct idle_injection_device *ii_dev;
> > > +	struct smp_hotplug_thread *smp_hotplug_thread;
> > > +	char *idle_injection_comm;
> > > +	int cpu, ret;
> > > +
> > > +	ret = -ENOMEM;
> > 
> > Maybe merge it earlier only ?
> 
> What do you mean ? int ret = -ENOMEM ?

Yes.

-- 
viresh