linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 0/2] x86/smp: Fix power regression introduced by commit 96040f7273e2

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: <20250528160523.GE39944@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Wed, 28 May 2025 18:05:23 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
	x86 Maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>, Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>,
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
	Artem Bityutskiy <artem.bityutskiy@...ux.intel.com>,
	"Gautham R. Shenoy" <gautham.shenoy@....com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Todd Brandt <todd.e.brandt@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 0/2] x86/smp: Fix power regression introduced by
 commit 96040f7273e2

On Wed, May 28, 2025 at 04:25:19PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:

> If cpuidle is available and works, it will do the same thing.

Why can't we make it available sooner? But no, cpuidle does not do the
same thing -- it was argued it does the right thing because it has them
tables with C states on and doesn't try and divinate from CPUID.

> > The whole point was that mwait_play_dead did not DTRT because hints are
> > stupid and it could not select the deepest C state in an unambiguous
> > fashion.
> 
> Yes, on some systems.

The 'on some systems' thing is irrelevant. Either it always works, or it
doesn't and we shouldnt be having it.

> > And now you're restoring that -- code you all argued was fundamentally
> > buggered.
> >
> > Yes is 'fixes' things on old platforms, but it is equally broken on the
> > new platforms where you all argued it was broken on. So either way
> > around you're going to need to fix those, and this isn't it.

> The commit reverted by the first patch removed
> mwait_play_dead_cpuid_hint() altogether, so it never runs and the only
> fallback is hlt_play_dead(), but this doesn't work for disabling SMT
> siblings.

It should either be fixed to always work or stay dead.

> > Now, SMT siblings are all AP, by definition. So can't we simply send
> > them INIT instead of doing CLI;HLT, that way they drop into
> > Wait-for-SIPI and the ucode can sort it out?
> 
> No, I don't think so.  I don't think that Wait-for-SIPI is an idle state.
> 
> But we are discussing patch [2/2] here while really the problem is
> that the commit in question is broken, so it needs to be reverted in
> the first place.

No, you all very much argued that mwait_play_dead couldn't be fixed, as
such it must die and stay dead. Sometimes working is worse than never
working.

So no, I very much object to the revert.