linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v10 01/11] cpuidle/poll_state: poll via smp_cond_load_relaxed

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]
Message-ID: <87ikm5jcxz.fsf@oracle.com>
Date: Mon, 12 May 2025 22:29:28 -0700
From: Ankur Arora <ankur.a.arora@...cle.com>
To: Ankur Arora <ankur.a.arora@...cle.com>
Cc: linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, catalin.marinas@....com, will@...nel.org,
        x86@...nel.org, pbonzini@...hat.com, vkuznets@...hat.com,
        rafael@...nel.org, daniel.lezcano@...aro.org, peterz@...radead.org,
        arnd@...db.de, lenb@...nel.org, mark.rutland@....com,
        harisokn@...zon.com, mtosatti@...hat.com, sudeep.holla@....com,
        cl@...two.org, maz@...nel.org, misono.tomohiro@...itsu.com,
        maobibo@...ngson.cn, zhenglifeng1@...wei.com,
        joao.m.martins@...cle.com, boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com,
        konrad.wilk@...cle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 01/11] cpuidle/poll_state: poll via
 smp_cond_load_relaxed_timewait()


Ankur Arora <ankur.a.arora@...cle.com> writes:

> The inner loop in poll_idle() polls to see if the thread's
> TIF_NEED_RESCHED bit is set. The loop exits once the condition is met,
> or if the poll time limit has been exceeded.
>
> To minimize the number of instructions executed in each iteration, the
> time check is rate-limited. In addition, each loop iteration executes
> cpu_relax() which on certain platforms provides a hint to the pipeline
> that the loop is busy-waiting, which allows the processor to reduce
> power consumption.
>
> However, cpu_relax() is defined optimally only on x86. On arm64, for
> instance, it is implemented as a YIELD which only serves as a hint
> to the CPU that it prioritize a different hardware thread if one is
> available. arm64, does expose a more optimal polling mechanism via
> smp_cond_load_relaxed_timewait() which uses LDXR, WFE to wait until a
> store to a specified region, or until a timeout.
>
> These semantics are essentially identical to what we want
> from poll_idle(). So, restructure the loop to use
> smp_cond_load_relaxed_timewait() instead.
>
> The generated code remains close to the original version.
>
> Suggested-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
> Signed-off-by: Ankur Arora <ankur.a.arora@...cle.com>
> ---
>  drivers/cpuidle/poll_state.c | 27 ++++++++-------------------
>  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/cpuidle/poll_state.c b/drivers/cpuidle/poll_state.c
> index 9b6d90a72601..5117d3d37036 100644
> --- a/drivers/cpuidle/poll_state.c
> +++ b/drivers/cpuidle/poll_state.c
> @@ -8,35 +8,24 @@
>  #include <linux/sched/clock.h>
>  #include <linux/sched/idle.h>
>
> -#define POLL_IDLE_RELAX_COUNT	200
> -
>  static int __cpuidle poll_idle(struct cpuidle_device *dev,
>  			       struct cpuidle_driver *drv, int index)
>  {
> -	u64 time_start;
> -
> -	time_start = local_clock_noinstr();
>
>  	dev->poll_time_limit = false;
>
>  	raw_local_irq_enable();
>  	if (!current_set_polling_and_test()) {
> -		unsigned int loop_count = 0;
> -		u64 limit;
> +		unsigned long flags;
> +		u64 time_start = local_clock_noinstr();
> +		u64 limit = cpuidle_poll_time(drv, dev);
>
> -		limit = cpuidle_poll_time(drv, dev);
> +		flags = smp_cond_load_relaxed_timewait(&current_thread_info()->flags,
> +						       VAL & _TIF_NEED_RESCHED,
> +						       local_clock_noinstr(),
> +						       time_start + limit);
>
> -		while (!need_resched()) {
> -			cpu_relax();
> -			if (loop_count++ < POLL_IDLE_RELAX_COUNT)
> -				continue;
> -
> -			loop_count = 0;
> -			if (local_clock_noinstr() - time_start > limit) {
> -				dev->poll_time_limit = true;
> -				break;
> -			}
> -		}
> +		dev->poll_time_limit = !(flags & _TIF_NEED_RESCHED);
>  	}
>  	raw_local_irq_disable();

The barrier-v2 [1] interface is slightly different from the one proposed
in v1 (which this series is based on.)

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20250502085223.1316925-1-ankur.a.arora@oracle.com/

For testing please use the following patch. It adds a new parameter
(__smp_cond_timewait_coarse) explicitly specifying the waiting policy.

--

diff --git a/drivers/cpuidle/poll_state.c b/drivers/cpuidle/poll_state.c
index 9b6d90a72601..2970368663c7 100644
--- a/drivers/cpuidle/poll_state.c
+++ b/drivers/cpuidle/poll_state.c
@@ -8,35 +8,25 @@
 #include <linux/sched/clock.h>
 #include <linux/sched/idle.h>

-#define POLL_IDLE_RELAX_COUNT	200
-
 static int __cpuidle poll_idle(struct cpuidle_device *dev,
 			       struct cpuidle_driver *drv, int index)
 {
-	u64 time_start;
-
-	time_start = local_clock_noinstr();

 	dev->poll_time_limit = false;

 	raw_local_irq_enable();
 	if (!current_set_polling_and_test()) {
-		unsigned int loop_count = 0;
-		u64 limit;
+		unsigned long flags;
+		u64 time_start = local_clock_noinstr();
+		u64 limit = cpuidle_poll_time(drv, dev);

-		limit = cpuidle_poll_time(drv, dev);
+		flags = smp_cond_load_relaxed_timewait(&current_thread_info()->flags,
+						       VAL & _TIF_NEED_RESCHED,
+						       __smp_cond_timewait_coarse,
+						       local_clock_noinstr(),
+						       time_start + limit);

-		while (!need_resched()) {
-			cpu_relax();
-			if (loop_count++ < POLL_IDLE_RELAX_COUNT)
-				continue;
-
-			loop_count = 0;
-			if (local_clock_noinstr() - time_start > limit) {
-				dev->poll_time_limit = true;
-				break;
-			}
-		}
+		dev->poll_time_limit = !(flags & _TIF_NEED_RESCHED);
 	}
 	raw_local_irq_disable();

--
ankur