linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/5] lockstat: core infrastructure

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, 29 May 2007 13:28:45 -0700
From:	Daniel Walker <dwalker@...sta.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Bill Huey <billh@...ppy.monkey.org>,
	Jason Baron <jbaron@...hat.com>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] lockstat: core infrastructure

On Tue, 2007-05-29 at 14:52 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> +       now = sched_clock();
> +       waittime = now - hlock->waittime_stamp;
> + 

It looks like your using sched_clock() through out .. It's a little
troubling considering the constraints on the function .. Most
architecture implement a jiffies sched_clock() w/ 1 millisecond or worse
resolution.. I'd imagine a millisecond hold time is pretty rare, even a
millisecond wait time might be fairly rare too ..  There's also no
guarantee that sched_clock timestamps off two different cpu's can be
compared (or at least that's my understanding) ..

Daniel

-
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/