linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v11 0/8] PM / Domains: Support hierarchical CPU arrangement (PSCI/ARM)

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:   Tue, 26 Feb 2019 23:11:20 +0100
From:   "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
To:     Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>
Cc:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
        "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
        Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>,
        Lorenzo Pieralisi <Lorenzo.Pieralisi@....com>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
        "Raju P . L . S . S . S . N" <rplsssn@...eaurora.org>,
        Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>,
        Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>,
        Kevin Hilman <khilman@...nel.org>,
        Lina Iyer <ilina@...eaurora.org>,
        Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@...der.be>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        linux-arm-msm <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v11 0/8] PM / Domains: Support hierarchical CPU
 arrangement (PSCI/ARM)

On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 11:06 PM Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 26 Feb 2019 at 22:52, Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@...nel.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 10:31 PM Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, 26 Feb 2019 at 18:50, Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@...nel.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 3:55 PM Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Changes in v11:
> > > > >  - This version contains only the infrastructure changes that is needed for
> > > > > deployment. The PSCI/ARM changes have also been updated and tested, but I will
> > > > > post them separately. Still, to provide completeness, I have published a branch
> > > > > containing everything to a git tree [1], feel free to have a look and test.
> > > > >  - The v10 series contained a patch, "timer: Export next wakeup time of a CPU",
> > > > > which has been replaced by a couple of new patches, whom reworks the existing
> > > > > tick_nohz_get_sleep_length() function, to provide the next timer expiration
> > > > > instead of the duration.
> > > > >  - More changelogs are available per patch.
> > > >
> > > > NAK for patches [4-6/8].
> > > >
> > > > The code as is specifically avoids calling ktime_get() from the
> > > > governors as that can be quite expensive, so these patches potentially
> > > > make things worse.
> > >
> > > Yeah, good point! What do you think about folding in a patch into the
> > > series, like below, and then let the cpuidle governors use it?
> >
> > It is not objectionable as it stands, but that also depends on what
> > the new function is used for.
> >
> > In particular, I don't really think that the menu and teo governors
> > need to call it at all.
>
> Well, if we are going to re-work the code as suggested in the series,
> then how would you suggest to get rid of the calls to ktime_get() that
> is introduced in patch 4 and patch5?
>
> BTW, at a closer look I am even tempted to squash patch3 to patch6
> (including the part I attached earlier) as this part of the series is
> really a re-work of tick_nohz_get_sleep_length() and its users.

Which is unnecessary IMO - see my reply to patch [7/8].