linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] powerpc/powernv/idle: Rename pnv_first_spr_loss

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: <1595341835.8ad8mjl9hm.astroid@bobo.none>
Date:   Wed, 22 Jul 2020 00:37:41 +1000
From:   Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>
To:     benh@...nel.crashing.org, ego@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
        mikey@...ling.org, mpe@...erman.id.au, paulus@...ba.org,
        pratik.r.sampat@...il.com, Pratik Sampat <psampat@...ux.ibm.com>,
        svaidy@...ux.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] powerpc/powernv/idle: Rename
 pnv_first_spr_loss_level variable

Excerpts from Pratik Sampat's message of July 21, 2020 8:29 pm:
> 
> 
> On 20/07/20 5:27 am, Nicholas Piggin wrote:
>> Excerpts from Pratik Rajesh Sampat's message of July 18, 2020 4:53 am:
>>> Replace the variable name from using "pnv_first_spr_loss_level" to
>>> "pnv_first_fullstate_loss_level".
>>>
>>> As pnv_first_spr_loss_level is supposed to be the earliest state that
>>> has OPAL_PM_LOSE_FULL_CONTEXT set, however as shallow states too loose
>>> SPR values, render an incorrect terminology.
>> It also doesn't lose "full" state at this loss level though. From the
>> architecture it could be called "hv state loss level", but in POWER10
>> even that is not strictly true.
>>
> Right. Just discovered that deep stop states won't loose full state
> P10 onwards.
> Would it better if we rename it as "pnv_all_spr_loss_state" instead
> so that it stays generic enough while being semantically coherent?

It doesn't lose all SPRs. It does physically, but for Linux it appears 
at least timebase SPRs are retained and that's mostly how it's 
documented.

Maybe there's no really good name for it, but we do call it "deep" stop 
in other places, you could call it deep_spr_loss maybe. I don't mind too 
much though, whatever Gautham is happy with.

Thanks,
Nick