linux-kernel - RE: why kernel implement "udelay" by cpu instructions?

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, 4 Nov 2009 11:15:01 +0530
From:	"Rajat Jain" <Rajat.Jain@...ogain.com>
To:	"Bryan Donlan" <bdonlan@...il.com>
Cc:	"loody" <miloody@...il.com>, "Rik van Riel" <riel@...hat.com>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Kernel Newbies" <kernelnewbies@...linux.org>
Subject: RE: why kernel implement "udelay" by cpu instructions?


Hi,

> 
> I thought hrtimers allow higher-precision wakeups these days?
> Of course, if you only want to sleep for a few microseconds, the
> context switch might take longer than you want to sleep...

Yes, that is right. Sorry, I missed that. But that is purely HW
dependent - if your HW providea a high precision timer (Such as HPET on
latest Intel machines), that can be used for quicker sleeps.

Thanks,

Rajat
--
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/