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
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 08:13:27 +0100 From: Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de> To: Jiri Bohac <jbohac@...e.cz> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Vojtech Pavlik <vojtech@...e.cz>, ssouhlal@...ebsd.org, arjan@...radead.org, tglx@...utronix.de, johnstul@...ibm.com, zippel@...ux-m68k.org, andrea@...e.de Subject: Re: [patch 4/9] Remove the TSC synchronization on SMP machines On Thursday 01 February 2007 14:17, Jiri Bohac wrote: > On Thu, Feb 01, 2007 at 12:14:23PM +0100, Andi Kleen wrote: > > On Thursday 01 February 2007 10:59, jbohac@...e.cz wrote: > > > TSC is either synchronized by design or not reliable > > > to be used for anything, let alone timekeeping. > > > > In my tree this is already done better by a patch from Ingo. > > Check if they look synchronized and don't use TSC if they are not. > > The whole purpose of this patchset is to make use of TSC even if > it's not synchronized. It's still useful as a double check for platforms (like Intel single node) which are supposed to be synchronized. > Synchronizing it will not make anything better in any way -- the > implementation just does not care whether TSCs are synchronized. > That's why I think the synchronization code is not needed. It doesn't actively synchronize it, just checks if they look synchronized. -Andi - 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists