linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/6] pmdomain/cpuidle-psci: Support s2idle/s2ram on PREEMPT

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]

Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2024 12:42:26 +0200
From: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>
To: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
Cc: "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, 
	Lorenzo Pieralisi <Lorenzo.Pieralisi@....com>, Nikunj Kela <nkela@...cinc.com>, 
	Prasad Sodagudi <psodagud@...cinc.com>, Maulik Shah <quic_mkshah@...cinc.com>, 
	Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>, 
	Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>, linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] pmdomain/cpuidle-psci: Support s2idle/s2ram on PREEMPT_RT

On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 at 11:44, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
<bigeasy@...utronix.de> wrote:
>
> On 2024-04-29 16:05:25 [+0200], Ulf Hansson wrote:
> > The hierarchical PM domain topology and the corresponding domain-idle-states
> > are currently disabled on a PREEMPT_RT based configuration. The main reason is
> > because spinlocks are turned into sleepable locks on PREEMPT_RT, which means
> > genpd and runtime PM can't be use in the atomic idle-path when
> > selecting/entering an idle-state.
> >
> > For s2idle/s2ram this is an unnecessary limitation that this series intends to
> > address. Note that, the support for cpuhotplug is left to future improvements.
> > More information about this are available in the commit messages.
> >
> > I have tested this on a Dragonboard 410c.
>
> Have you tested this with PREEMPT_RT enabled and if so, which kernel?

Yes, of course. :-) I should have mentioned this in the cover-letter, sorry.

I have used the linux-rt-devel.git, which had a branch based upon
v6.8-rc7 a while ago, that I used when I did my tests.

The series needed a small rebase on top of my linux-pm tree [1],
before I could post it though. I also tested the rebased series, but
then of course then not with PREEMPT_RT, but to make sure there are no
regressions.

Kind regards
Uffe

[1]
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/ulfh/linux-pm.git next