| 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: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 13:25:14 +0100 From: Andi Kleen <ak@....de> To: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org> Cc: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>, Zachary Amsden <zach@...are.com>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>, Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>, Chris Wright <chrisw@...s-sol.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/11] VMI / Paravirt bugfixes for 2.6.21 > hmm stolen time could even be useful without virtualization; to a large > degree, if cpufreq reduces the speed of your cpu you have "stolen > cycles" that way... I wonder if this concept can be used for that as > well... If you mean it for the real time clock: Doesn't make sense then because Linux time isn't measured in cycles If you mean it for the scheduler: it only uses estimates for relative fairness. As long as everybody is sloeed down in the same way the relative fairness doesn't change. For time accounting: the regular timer interrupt is fairly imprecise anyawys because it samples at a low frequency. While it would be possible to improve this it would be quite costly by slowing down interrupts and syscalls. I'm not sure it makes that much difference here either. I don't see the point, frankly. -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