linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/7] x86/umwait_contro: Set global umwait maximum time limit and umwait C0.2 state

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: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1808011100460.2501@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
Date:   Wed, 1 Aug 2018 11:01:51 +0200 (CEST)
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
cc:     Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        H Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com>,
        Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@...el.com>,
        Alan Cox <alan@...ux.intel.com>,
        Ravi V Shankar <ravi.v.shankar@...el.com>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, x86 <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/7] x86/umwait_contro: Set global umwait maximum time
 limit and umwait C0.2 state

On Mon, 23 Jul 2018, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On 07/23/2018 05:55 AM, Fenghua Yu wrote:
> > UMWAIT or TPAUSE called by user process makes processor to reside in
> > a light-weight power/performance optimized state (C0.1 state) or an
> > improved power/performance optimized state (C0.2 state).
> > 
> > IA32_UMWAIT_CONTROL MSR register allows OS to set global maximum umwait
> > time and disable C0.2 on the processor.
> > 
> > The maximum time value in IA32_UMWAIT_CONTROL[31-2] is set as zero which
> > means there is no global time limit for UMWAIT and TPAUSE instructions.
> > Each process sets its own umwait maximum time as the instructions operand.
> > We don't set a non-zero global umwait maximum time value to enforce user
> > wait timeout because we couldn't find any usage for it.
> 
> Do you know what the instruction designers had in mind?  I assume they were
> thinking of *something*, but I'm seriously mystified by three things:
> 
>  - Why does CF work the way it does?  It seems like it would be genuinely
> useful for CF to indicate whether the in-register timeout has expired, but
> that's not what CF does.

Right, it would be useful to see whether the timeout caused the exit or
something else.

Thanks,

	tglx