linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] ACPI: Replace msleep() with usleep_range() in acpi_os

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: <e0dd2cb8-eea2-443d-bf23-4d225528d33f@linux.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2024 10:37:58 -0800
From: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
Cc: Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>, anna-maria@...utronix.de,
 tglx@...utronix.de, peterz@...radead.org, frederic@...nel.org,
 corbet@....net, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>, Todd Brandt <todd.e.brandt@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] ACPI: Replace msleep() with usleep_range() in
 acpi_os_sleep().

On 11/20/2024 10:03 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 19, 2024 at 4:08 PM Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 11/19/2024 5:42 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>> On Mon, Nov 18, 2024 at 3:35 PM Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> And the argument seems to be that it is better to always use more
>>>>> resources in a given path (ACPI sleep in this particular case) than to
>>>>> be somewhat inaccurate which is visible in some cases.
>>>>>
>>>>> This would mean that hrtimers should always be used everywhere, but they aren't.
>>>>
>>>> more or less rule of thumb is that regular timers are optimized for not firing case
>>>> (e.g. timeouts that get deleted when the actual event happens) while hrtimers
>>>> are optimized for the case where the timer is expected to fire.
>>>
>>> I've heard that, which makes me wonder why msleep() is still there.
>>>
>>> One thing that's rarely mentioned is that programming a timer in HW
>>> actually takes time, so if it is done too often, it hurts performance
>>> through latency (even if this is the TSC deadline timer).
>>
>> yup and this is why you want to group events together "somewhat", and which is why
>> we have slack, to allow that to happen
> 
> So what do you think would be the minimum slack to use in this case?
> 
> I thought about something on the order of 199 us, but now I'm thinking
> that 50 us would work too.  Less than this - I'm not sure.

50 usec is likely more than enough in practice.