linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][patch 00/12] clocksource / timekeeping rework V2

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:	Wed, 29 Jul 2009 08:10:42 -0700
From:	Daniel Walker <dwalker@...o99.com>
To:	Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	john stultz <johnstul@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][patch 00/12] clocksource / timekeeping rework V2

On Wed, 2009-07-29 at 15:41 +0200, Martin Schwidefsky wrote:
> There is still more room for improvement. Some sore points are:
> 
> 1) The cycle_last value still is in the struct clocksource. It should
>    be in the struct timekeeper but the check against cycles_last in
> the
>    read function of the TSC clock source makes it hard.
> 2) read_persistent_clock returns seconds. With a really good initial
>    time source this is not very precise. read_persistent_clock should
>    return a struct timespec.
> 3) xtime, raw_time, total_sleep_time, timekeeping_suspended, jiffies,
>    the ntp state and probably a few other values may be better located
>    in the struct timekeeper as well.


You could also consolidate the clocksource_unregister() path and the
clocksource_change_rating(0) path  , both are basically doing the same
thing.. Neither one is heavily used..

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/