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  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:   Fri, 22 Mar 2019 10:45:55 +0100
From:   "Rafael J. Wysocki" <>
To:     Abhishek Goel <>
Cc:     Linux Kernel Mailing List <>,
        linuxppc-dev <>,
        Linux PM <>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <>,
        Daniel Lezcano <>,
        Michael Ellerman <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] cpuidle : auto-promotion for cpuidle states

On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 8:31 AM Abhishek Goel
<> 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?

Powered by blists - more mailing lists