linux-kernel - Re: [PATCHv2 1/3] ARM: Translate delay.S into (mostly) C

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, 03 Nov 2010 16:17:15 -0700
From:	Daniel Walker <dwalker@...eaurora.org>
To:	Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>
Cc:	Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
	Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
	Nicolas Pitre <nico@...xnic.net>,
	Kevin Hilman <khilman@...prootsystems.com>,
	linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Saravana Kannan <skannan@...eaurora.org>,
	Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@...com>,
	Colin Cross <ccross@...roid.com>,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 1/3] ARM: Translate delay.S into (mostly) C

On Wed, 2010-11-03 at 16:15 -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> On 11/03/2010 11:27 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
> > Hi Stephen,
> >
> > On Thu, 2010-10-28 at 21:19 +0000, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> >> Nico expressed concern that fixed lpj cmdlines will break due to
> >> compiler optimizations. That doesn't seem to be the case since
> >> before and after this patch I get the same lpj value when running
> >> my CPU at 19.2 MHz. That should be sufficiently slow enough to
> >> cover any machine running Linux.
> >
> > I appreciate this is an exceptional case, but there are some lucky
> > guys at ARM who (as routinely as they can) boot Linux on sub 1MHz
> > hardware. The delay loop is something they're keen to avoid so they do
> > make use of the lpj= command line option and would rather it didn't
> > break on them.
> 
> Do you know if it breaks at that frequency? I don't have any hardware to
> test with that goes lower than the stated 19.2 MHz.

Isn't it possible that a new compiler could optimize the code
differently, and then end up breaking lpj= ?

Daniel

-- 

Sent by a consultant of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum.

--
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/