From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1161014AbbEURJE (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Thu, 21 May 2015 13:09:04 -0400
Received: from cantor2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:37822 "EHLO mx2.suse.de"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1755395AbbEURI7 (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Thu, 21 May 2015 13:08:59 -0400
Date: Thu, 21 May 2015 19:08:55 +0200
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>
Cc: Huang Rui <ray.huang@amd.com>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
        "x86@kernel.org" <x86@kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@intel.com>, Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@intel.com>,
        "Li, Tony" <Tony.Li@amd.com>,
        =?utf-8?B?RnLDqWTDqXJpYw==?= Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/4] x86, mwaitt: introduce mwaitx idle with a
 configurable timer
Message-ID: <20150521170855.GB23652@pd.tnic>
References: <20150520114125.GA31212@gmail.com>
 <alpine.DEB.2.11.1505201518050.4225@nanos>
 <20150520145122.GB10374@gmail.com>
 <20150520165558.24bf2483@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
 <20150520160702.GH3645@pd.tnic>
 <alpine.DEB.2.11.1505202105110.4225@nanos>
 <20150520201553.GI3645@pd.tnic>
 <20150521145632.GC22642@hr-slim.amd.com>
 <20150521160223.GA23652@pd.tnic>
 <CALCETrUJAPHeyXgwUe_n+MGPK5pK2qZGhoFou2_8EufZ5u+0rQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CALCETrUJAPHeyXgwUe_n+MGPK5pK2qZGhoFou2_8EufZ5u+0rQ@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 09:45:10AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> I must be missing something.  In this sequence, you're sleeping with
> IF=0 and ECX[0] = 0, so an IRQ won't get handled.  Don't we want
> ECX[0] = 1?

Hmm, so actually we don't want to sleep with interrupts disabled. If
ECX[0]=1b, then an interrupt will wake MWAIT. So then you have to do the
loop thing as tglx suggested.

> > The NMI argument is a problem though - if and NMI gets you out of
> > MWAITX, a simple perf tool workload would kill all MWAITX executions.
> > Which is bad. :-\
> 
> I'm not sure it's a show-stopper.  NMI handlers are meant to be fast.
> If an NMI comes in between rdtsc and mwaitx, then we oversleep, but by
> at most the time it takes to handle an NMI, and nothing would have
> stopped us from oversleeping that long if an NMI came in right after
> mwaitx returned.

Actually, I'm thinking about an NMI happening after we've issued MWAIT.
NMIs wake it up. So you have the same problem as above:

NMIs will wake MWAIT so you'd need to check how long you've slept and
sleep for the remaining time. I.e., something like that thing from a
couple of mails ago:

	delay = usec_to_tsc(delay_usec);

        if (delay > ((1 << 32) - 1)) {
                mdelay(delay_usec);
                return;
        }

	end = rdtsc() + delay;
	while (1) {

		monitorx( ...); /* Do we need that here? */
		mwaitx(delay);

		/* possible wakeups */

		now = rdtsc();
		if (end <= now)
			break;
		delay = end - now;
	}


Yes, no?

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

ECO tip #101: Trim your mails when you reply.
--