linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH][RFC v2] ACPI: acpi_pad: Do not launch acpi

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: <3282057.yGUaGxRyCs@aspire.rjw.lan>
Date:   Wed, 03 Oct 2018 11:38:58 +0200
From:   "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
To:     Yu Chen <yu.c.chen@...el.com>
Cc:     Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Lenny Szubowicz <lszubowi@...hat.com>,
        Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com>,
        Rui Zhang <rui.zhang@...el.com>, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH][RFC v2] ACPI: acpi_pad: Do not launch acpi_pad threads on idle cpus

On Monday, May 14, 2018 5:45:23 PM CEST Yu Chen wrote:
> On Sun, May 13, 2018 at 11:30:52AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Saturday, May 5, 2018 1:53:22 PM CEST Chen Yu wrote:
> > > According to current implementation of acpi_pad driver,
> > > it does not make sense to spawn any power saving threads
> > > on the cpus which are already idle - it might bring
> > > unnecessary overhead on these idle cpus and causes power
> > > waste. So verify the condition that if the number of 'busy'
> > > cpus exceeds the amount of the 'forced idle' cpus is met.
> > > This is applicable due to round-robin attribute of the
> > > power saving threads, otherwise ignore the setting/ACPI
> > > notification.
> > 
> > OK, but CPUs are busy, because they are running tasks.  If acpi_pad
> > kthreads run on them, the tasks they are running will migrate to the
> > currently idle CPUs (unless they have specific CPU affinity) and the
> > throttling will not really be effective.
> >
> OK, I think this makes sense, I missed the load balance scenario.
> > I would think that acpi_pad should ensure that the requested number of
> > CPUs will not run anything other than throttling kthreads.  Isn't that
> > the case?
> > 
> Do you mean, we should check if the number of 'idle'(rather than the 'busy' one
> in this patch) cpus is larger than the requested one? Then I think we should also
> add a patch to use the play_idle() as power_clamp to treat the throttling kthreads
> as idle threads thus to stop system tick. Such as the patch Jacob proposed:

I wonder if that can be switched over to the new idle injection framework
added recently?

Thanks,
Rafael