linux-kernel - Re: [patch] dubious process system time.

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]

Date:	Fri, 25 Aug 2006 12:29:28 +0200
From:	Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>
To:	Helge Hafting <helge.hafting@...el.hist.no>
Cc:	Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch] dubious process system time.

On Fri, 2006-08-25 at 12:12 +0200, Helge Hafting wrote:
> > Again, why do I have to account non-process related time to a process?
> > Ihmo that is completly wrong.
> >   
> If softirq time have to be accounted to a process (so as to not
> get lost), how about accounting it to the softirqd process?  Much
> more reasonable than random processes.

The main question still is if it is correct to add softirq/hardirq time
to the system time of a process. If the answer turns out to be yes, then
it might be a clever idea to account softirq time to the softirqd. That
still leaves the question what to do with hardirq time ..
My take still is that softirq/hardirq time does not belong to the system
time of any process.

-- 
blue skies,
  Martin.

Martin Schwidefsky
Linux for zSeries Development & Services
IBM Deutschland Entwicklung GmbH

"Reality continues to ruin my life." - Calvin.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/