linux-kernel - Re: [patch 00/46] High resolution timer / dynamic tick update

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:	Tue, 23 Jan 2007 18:23:06 -0800
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>
To:	Daniel Walker <dwalker@...sta.com>
Cc:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	John Stultz <johnstul@...ibm.com>,
	Arjan van de Veen <arjan@...radead.org>,
	Roman Zippel <zippel@...ux-m68k.org>
Subject: Re: [patch 00/46] High resolution timer / dynamic tick update

On Tue, 23 Jan 2007 18:16:31 -0800
Daniel Walker <dwalker@...sta.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 2007-01-23 at 22:00 +0000, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> >  - Provide a generic way to verify clocksources. TSC needs
> >    verification due to broken hardware and BIOS implementations. The
> >    previous attempt to allow TSC usage for high resolution and/or
> >    dynamic ticks only in combination with the PM-Timer made hardwired
> >    assumptions, which are ugly to maintain. The new verification code
> >    solves this by chosing the best available clocksource for
> >    verification and handles the usability check for highres / dynamic
> >    ticks. This makes TSC code agnostic of other hardware available in
> >    the system.
> 
> 
> There appears to be some fairly clear duplication between my clocksource
> tree and this release of high resolution timers. Not to mention that we
> both submitted our tree's to Andrew within days . 
> 
> To lessen Andrews burden it would be wise to integrate the two trees
> prior to anything going into -mm .. It makes sense to eliminate this
> kind of duplication since it just results in wasted effort. With the
> benefit that the merge would likely result in a stronger patch set over
> all.
> 

There's also the question of testing status.  We know that the dynticks
patches in -mm mostly work.  Now that they appear to have been largely respun,
we don't know that any more.  Then if we go adding more stuff on top, problem
identification becomes harder.

I thought that dynticks/hrtimers was a done thing: in fact $certain_people wanted
them in 2.6.20.  The late-breaking rip-up-and-rewrite was rather unwelcome.  But
I haven't got onto reading the patchset yet.

-
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/