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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Tue, 2 Apr 2019 21:36:42 -0500
From:   Yang Li <>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <>
Cc:     Russell King - ARM Linux <>,
        "" <>,
        Daniel Lezcano <>,
        Arnd Bergmann <>,
        Huan Wang <>,
        Huan Wang <>,
        "" <>,
        John Stultz <>,
        LAK <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm: kernel: utilize hrtimer based broadcast

On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 3:46 AM Thomas Gleixner <> wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Jan 2016, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 02:54:10PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > I have no real opinion about that patch. It does no harm to unconditionally
> > > setup the hrtimer based broadcast even if it's never used.
> > >
> > > Up to the arch maintainer to decide.
> >
> > That's really not fair to keep shovelling these kinds of decisions onto
> > architecture maintainers without any kind of explanation about how an
> > architecture maintainer should make such a decision.
> >
> > Do I roll a 6-face dice, and if it gives an odd number, I apply this
> > patch, otherwise I reject it?
> >
> > Is there a technical basis for making the decision?  If so, please
> > explain what the technical arguments are against having or not having
> > this change.
> The hrtimer based broadcast device is used when you have per cpu timers which
> stop in deeper power states, but you have no other timer hardware on the chip
> which can backup the per cpu timer in deep power states. The trick is that it
> emulates a timer hardware via a hrtimer and then tells the cpu idle code not
> to go into deep power states on the cpu which owns that hrtimer. All other
> cpus can go as deep as they want and still get woken up.
> The only downside of adding this unconditionally is extra code in case that it
> is not needed on a particular platform.
> Hope that helps.

Hi Russell,

This has been pending for so long time.  I assume this is an ack from
Thomas.  And given the same thing has been added for arm64 and powerpc
architecture, can you also merge this for ARM?


Powered by blists - more mailing lists