linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] ipmi_si_intf: use usleep

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 9 Jul 2019 15:11:47 -0700
From:   Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:     Corey Minyard <minyard@....org>
Cc:     openipmi-developer@...ts.sourceforge.net,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ipmi_si_intf: use usleep_range() instead of busy looping

On Tue, Jul 09, 2019 at 04:46:02PM -0500, Corey Minyard wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 09, 2019 at 02:06:43PM -0700, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > ipmi_thread() uses back-to-back schedule() to poll for command
> > completion which, on some machines, can push up CPU consumption and
> > heavily tax the scheduler locks leading to noticeable overall
> > performance degradation.
> > 
> > This patch replaces schedule() with usleep_range(100, 200).  This
> > allows the sensor readings to finish resonably fast and the cpu
> > consumption of the kthread is kept under several percents of a core.
> 
> The IPMI thread was not really designed for sensor reading, it was
> designed so that firmware updates would happen in a reasonable time
> on systems without an interrupt on the IPMI interface.  This change
> will degrade performance for that function.  IIRC correctly the
> people who did the patch tried this and it slowed things down too
> much.

Also, can you point me to the exact patch?  I'm kinda curious what
kind of timning they used.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun