linux-kernel - Re: LinuxPPS low-level IRQs timestamps & ldisc

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:	Mon, 2 Jun 2008 19:22:03 +0200
From:	Rodolfo Giometti <giometti@...eenne.com>
To:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: LinuxPPS low-level IRQs timestamps & ldisc

On Mon, Jun 02, 2008 at 04:48:40PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> > I prefere avoid the if clause for getnstimeofday() since each
> > instruction delay may decrease time precision, so:
> 
> Why should everyone else pay the cost of the getnstimeofday they don't
> need ?
> 
> The single conditional check at the start won't make the slightest
> material difference to your accuracy.

In the past we noticed that just moving up the getnstimeofday() of
only one instruction, from:

	port->icount.dcd++;
	getnstimeofday(&ts);

to:

	getnstimeofday(&ts);
	port->icount.dcd++;

the time precision improved from 5ms to 2ms...

However, if you prefere that I add the if clause, I'll do it.

Thanks,

Rodolfo 

-- 

GNU/Linux Solutions                  e-mail:    giometti@...eenne.com
Linux Device Driver                             giometti@...ux.it
Embedded Systems                     phone:	+39 349 2432127
UNIX programming                     skype:     rodolfo.giometti
--
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/