| 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, 18 May 2010 12:00:34 -0700 (PDT) From: Dan Magenheimer <dan.magenheimer@...cle.com> To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Venkatesh Pallipadi <venki@...gle.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, chris.mason@...cle.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: RE: [PATCH] x86: Export tsc related information in sysfs > From: H. Peter Anvin [mailto:hpa@...or.com] > Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: Export tsc related information in sysfs > > On 05/18/2010 10:49 AM, Dan Magenheimer wrote: > > > > (Though I expect tglx/arjan/andi/mingo to disagree with this proposal > > for similar reasons as the original one that started this thread...) > > I'll add another reason to disagree: exporting these as sysfs variables > is non-atomic, but these are really only useful when atomically read as > a unit. Which "these"? The counters? I would think the primary use of the counters is to diagnose extreme problem cases, not to differentiate whether a system or process did exactly 27 vs 28 rdtsc's, so I don't see why atomic read is at all necessary. Or did I miss your point entirely? -- 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