linux-kernel - Re: [RFC/RFT][PATCH v0.1] ACPI: OSL: Use 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: <e7ac7561-f9ff-406a-b2d7-6d9e31ed6e98@amd.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2024 16:27:26 -0600
From: Mario Limonciello <mario.limonciello@....com>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
 Linux ACPI <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
 Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>, Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>,
 Pierre Gondois <pierre.gondois@....com>,
 Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
 Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>,
 "Gautham R. Shenoy" <gautham.shenoy@....com>
Subject: Re: [RFC/RFT][PATCH v0.1] ACPI: OSL: Use usleep_range() in
 acpi_os_sleep()

On 11/21/2024 07:15, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
> 
> As stated by Len in [1], the extra delay added by msleep() to the
> sleep time value passed to it can be significant, roughly between
> 1.5 ns on systems with HZ = 1000 and as much as 15 ms on systems with
> HZ = 100, which is hardly acceptable, at least for small sleep time
> values.
> 
> Address this by using usleep_range() in acpi_os_sleep() instead of
> msleep().  For short sleep times this is a no-brainer, but even for
> long sleeps usleep_range() should be preferred because timer wheel
> timers are optimized for cancellation before they expire and this
> particular timer is not going to be canceled.
> 
> Add at least 50 us on top of the requested sleep time in case the
> timer can be subject to coalescing, which is consistent with what's
> done in user space in this context [2], but for sleeps longer than 5 ms
> use 1% of the requested sleep time for this purpose.
> 
> The rationale here is that longer sleeps don't need that much of a timer
> precision as a rule and making the timer a more likely candidate for
> coalescing in these cases is generally desirable.  It starts at 5 ms so
> that the delta between the requested sleep time and the effective
> deadline is a contiuous function of the former.
> 
> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-pm/c7db7e804c453629c116d508558eaf46477a2d73.1731708405.git.len.brown@intel.com/ [1]
> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-pm/CAJvTdK=Q1kwWA6Wxn8Zcf0OicDEk6cHYFAvQVizgA47mXu63+g@mail.gmail.com/ [2]
> Reported-by: Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>
> Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>

You probably should also pick up this tag from the earlier version.

Closes: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216263

> ---
> 
> This is a follow-up to the discussion started by [1] above and since
> the beginning of it I have changed my mind a bit, as you can see.
> 
> Given Arjan's feedback, I've concluded that using usleep_range() for
> all sleep values is the right choice and that some slack should be
> used there.  I've taken 50 us as the minimum value of it because that's
> what is used in user space FWICT and I'm not convinced that shorter
> values would be suitable here.
> 
> The other part, using 1% of the sleep time as the slack for longer
> sleeps, is likely more controversial.  It is roughly based on the
> observation that if one timer interrupt is sufficient for something,
> then using two of them will be wasteful even if this is just somewhat.
> 
> Anyway, please let me know what you think.  I'd rather do whatever
> the majority of you are comfortable with.

Generally I'm fine with this.

I'm about to head on US holiday, but I will forward this to folks that 
aren't and get some testing input on it to bring back later when I'm back.

> 
> ---
>   drivers/acpi/osl.c |   22 +++++++++++++++++++++-
>   1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> Index: linux-pm/drivers/acpi/osl.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-pm.orig/drivers/acpi/osl.c
> +++ linux-pm/drivers/acpi/osl.c
> @@ -607,7 +607,27 @@ acpi_status acpi_os_remove_interrupt_han
>   
>   void acpi_os_sleep(u64 ms)
>   {
> -	msleep(ms);
> +	u64 usec = ms * USEC_PER_MSEC, delta_us = 50;
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * Use a hrtimer because the timer wheel timers are optimized for
> +	 * cancellation before they expire and this timer is not going to be
> +	 * canceled.
> +	 *
> +	 * Set the delta between the requested sleep time and the effective
> +	 * deadline to at least 50 us in case there is an opportunity for timer
> +	 * coalescing.
> +	 *
> +	 * Moreover, longer sleeps can be assumed to need somewhat less timer
> +	 * precision, so sacrifice some of it for making the timer a more likely
> +	 * candidate for coalescing by setting the delta to 1% of the sleep time
> +	 * if it is above 5 ms (this value is chosen so that the delta is a
> +	 * continuous function of the sleep time).
> +	 */
> +	if (ms > 5)
> +		delta_us = (USEC_PER_MSEC / 100) * ms;
> +
> +	usleep_range(usec, usec + delta_us);
>   }
>   
>   void acpi_os_stall(u32 us)
> 
> 
>