linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/7] cpuidle: s/CPUIDLE_FLAG_POLLING/CPUIDLE_FLAG_POLLING

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: Thu, 8 Feb 2024 17:37:43 +0100
From: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
	linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/7] cpuidle:
 s/CPUIDLE_FLAG_POLLING/CPUIDLE_FLAG_POLLING_SOFT

Le Tue, Dec 12, 2023 at 02:09:38PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki a écrit :
> On Fri, Nov 24, 2023 at 11:32 PM Frederic Weisbecker
> <frederic@...nel.org> wrote:
> >
> > In order to further distinguish software and hardware TIF_NEED_RESCHED
> > polling cpuidle states, rename CPUIDLE_FLAG_POLLING to
> > CPUIDLE_FLAG_POLLING_SOFT before introducing CPUIDLE_FLAG_POLLING_HARD
> > and tag mwait users with it.
> 
> Well, if MWAIT users are the only category that will be tagged with
> the new flag, it can be called CPUIDLE_FLAG_POLLING_MWAIT or even
> CPUIDLE_FLAG_MWAIT for that matter and the $subject patch won't be
> necessary any more AFAICS.

Yep.

> 
> > This will allow cpuidle core to manage TIF_NR_POLLING on behalf of all
> > kinds of TIF_NEED_RESCHED polling states while keeping a necessary
> > distinction for the governors between software loops polling on
> > TIF_NEED_RESCHED and hardware monitored writes to thread flags.
> 
> Fair enough, but what about using a different name for the new flag
> and leaving the old one as is?

Sounds good. Will do.

Thanks!