linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 7/7] cpuidle/poll_state: replace cpu_relax with smp_cond_load

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]

Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2024 23:22:50 +0200
From: Mihai Carabas <mihai.carabas@...cle.com>
To: Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        catalin.marinas@....com, tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com,
        bp@...en8.de, x86@...nel.org, hpa@...or.com, pbonzini@...hat.com,
        wanpengli@...cent.com, vkuznets@...hat.com, rafael@...nel.org,
        daniel.lezcano@...aro.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, pmladek@...e.com,
        peterz@...radead.org, dianders@...omium.org, npiggin@...il.com,
        rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com, joao.m.martins@...cle.com,
        juerg.haefliger@...onical.com, mic@...ikod.net, arnd@...db.de,
        ankur.a.arora@...cle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/7] cpuidle/poll_state: replace cpu_relax with
 smp_cond_load_relaxed

La 11.12.2023 13:46, Will Deacon a scris:
> On Mon, Nov 20, 2023 at 04:01:38PM +0200, Mihai Carabas wrote:
>> cpu_relax on ARM64 does a simple "yield". Thus we replace it with
>> smp_cond_load_relaxed which basically does a "wfe".
>>
>> Suggested-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
>> Signed-off-by: Mihai Carabas <mihai.carabas@...cle.com>
>> ---
>>   drivers/cpuidle/poll_state.c | 14 +++++++++-----
>>   1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/cpuidle/poll_state.c b/drivers/cpuidle/poll_state.c
>> index 9b6d90a72601..440cd713e39a 100644
>> --- a/drivers/cpuidle/poll_state.c
>> +++ b/drivers/cpuidle/poll_state.c
>> @@ -26,12 +26,16 @@ static int __cpuidle poll_idle(struct cpuidle_device *dev,
>>   
>>   		limit = cpuidle_poll_time(drv, dev);
>>   
>> -		while (!need_resched()) {
>> -			cpu_relax();
>> -			if (loop_count++ < POLL_IDLE_RELAX_COUNT)
>> -				continue;
>> -
>> +		for (;;) {
>>   			loop_count = 0;
>> +
>> +			smp_cond_load_relaxed(&current_thread_info()->flags,
>> +					      (VAL & _TIF_NEED_RESCHED) ||
>> +					      (loop_count++ >= POLL_IDLE_RELAX_COUNT));
>> +
>> +			if (loop_count < POLL_IDLE_RELAX_COUNT)
>> +				break;
>> +
>>   			if (local_clock_noinstr() - time_start > limit) {
>>   				dev->poll_time_limit = true;
>>   				break;
> Doesn't this make ARCH_HAS_CPU_RELAX a complete misnomer?

This controls the build of poll_state.c and the generic definition of 
smp_cond_load_relaxed (used by x86) is using cpu_relax(). Do you propose 
other approach here?


>
> Will