linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V2 1/2] cpuidle: Replace use_deepest_state flag by forced_idle_latency_limit

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <02a0be83-942d-934d-dd78-8b1680324863@linaro.org>
Date:   Wed, 20 Nov 2019 12:32:38 +0100
From:   Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>
To:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
Cc:     rafael@...nel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, ulf.hansson@...aro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 1/2] cpuidle: Replace use_deepest_state flag by
 forced_idle_latency_limit_ns

On 20/11/2019 12:05, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Saturday, November 16, 2019 2:16:12 PM CET Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>> We want to specify a latency constraint when choosing an idle state at
>> play_idle time. Instead of duplicating the information in the
>> structure or propagate the latency in the call stack, change the
>> use_deepest_state by forced_latency_limit_ns to introduce this
>> constraint. The idea being that when it is set, idle is forced
>> (i.e. no governors), but there is a latency limit for the state to
>> use.
>>
>> A zero latency constraint means "do not use the deepest idle state
>> path" as the 'use_deepest_state' boolean was used in the
>> cpuidle_idle_call.
>>
>> In addition add the play_idle_precise() function getting a nanosec
>> base latency constraint as parameter. The play_idle() function becomes
>> a wrapper passing an U64_MAX to play_idle_precise().
>>
>> Suggested-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@...nel.org>
>> Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>
>> ---

[ ... ]

> Queued up for 5.5 along with the [2/2], but I have made quite a few changes
> to the patches, so please double check the result in my bleeding-edge branch.
> 
> Thanks!

They look good to me.

Thanks

  -- Daniel


-- 
 <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