linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] x86/smp native_play_dead: Prefer cpuidle_play_dead() over mwait_play

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <ZzYyPzT4AwSkbRpH@BLRRASHENOY1.amd.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2024 22:54:15 +0530
From: "Gautham R. Shenoy" <gautham.shenoy@....com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
	Patryk Wlazlyn <patryk.wlazlyn@...ux.intel.com>, x86@...nel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
	rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com, len.brown@...el.com,
	artem.bityutskiy@...ux.intel.com, dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com,
	Mario Limonciello <mario.limonciello@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] x86/smp native_play_dead: Prefer
 cpuidle_play_dead() over mwait_play_dead()

Hello Peter,

On Thu, Nov 14, 2024 at 12:58:31PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 13, 2024 at 05:11:38PM +0530, Gautham R. Shenoy wrote:
> 
> > AMD platforms won't be using FFH based states for offlined CPUs. We
> > prefer IO based states when available, and HLT otherwise.
> > 
> > > 
> > > Robustly we'd teach the ACPI driver about FFh and set enter_dead on
> > > every state -- but we'd have to double check that with AMD.
> > 
> > Works for us as long as those FFh states aren't used for play_dead on
> > AMD platforms.
> 
> AFAIU AMD doesn't want to use MWAIT -- ever, not only for offline.
> Confirm?
> 

AMD wants to use MWAIT for cpuidle and it does use MWAIT based C1
state on both client and server parts.

Eg: On my server box

$ cpupower idle-info  | grep "FFH" -B1 -A3
C1:
Flags/Description: ACPI FFH MWAIT 0x0
Latency: 1
Usage: 6591
Duration: 1482606

> But if it were to use MWAIT for regular idle, then surely it's OK for
> offline too, right?

I tried this out today and there is no functional issue.

However, I would like to run some experiments on whether HLT provides
better power savings than MWAIT C1 with CPUs offlined. I will get back
with this information tomorrow.

--
Thanks and Regards
gautham.