linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] cpuidle : auto-promotion for cpuidle states

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: <cfb0076f-0b56-f12c-a736-469a3d11ab83@linaro.org>
Date:   Fri, 22 Mar 2019 14:26:07 +0100
From:   Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>
To:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
        Abhishek Goel <huntbag@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:     Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
        Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] cpuidle : auto-promotion for cpuidle states

On 22/03/2019 10:45, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 8:31 AM Abhishek Goel
> <huntbag@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>>
>> Currently, the cpuidle governors (menu /ladder) determine what idle state
>> an idling CPU should enter into based on heuristics that depend on the
>> idle history on that CPU. Given that no predictive heuristic is perfect,
>> there are cases where the governor predicts a shallow idle state, hoping
>> that the CPU will be busy soon. However, if no new workload is scheduled
>> on that CPU in the near future, the CPU will end up in the shallow state.
>>
>> In case of POWER, this is problematic, when the predicted state in the
>> aforementioned scenario is a lite stop state, as such lite states will
>> inhibit SMT folding, thereby depriving the other threads in the core from
>> using the core resources.
>>
>> To address this, such lite states need to be autopromoted. The cpuidle-
>> core can queue timer to correspond with the residency value of the next
>> available state. Thus leading to auto-promotion to a deeper idle state as
>> soon as possible.
> 
> Isn't the tick stopping avoidance sufficient for that?

I was about to ask the same :)




-- 
 <http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs

Follow Linaro:  <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook |
<http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter |
<http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog