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  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, 11 Sep 2019 09:57:07 -0400
From:   "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <>
To:     Xiaoguang Wang <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] jbd2: add new tracepoint jbd2_sleep_on_shadow

On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 02:52:51PM +0800, Xiaoguang Wang wrote:
> > I think maybe it might be better to use units of microseconds and then
> > change sleep to usleep so the units are clear?  This is a spinlock, so
> > it should be quick.
> Sorry, I may not quite understand you, do you mean that milliseconds is not precise, so
> should use microseconds? For these two patches, they do not use usleep or msleep to do
> real sleep work, they just record the duration which process takes to wait bh_shadow flag
> to be cleared or transaction to be unlocked.

Apologies, I should have been clear enough.  Yes, my concern that
milliseconds might not be fine-grained enough.  The sample results
which you showed had values of 2ms, 1ms, and 0ms.  And the single 0ms
result in particular raised the concern that we should use a
microseconds instead of milliseconds.

In fact, instead of "sleep", maybe "latency(us)" or "latency(ms)"
would be a better label?


						- Ted

Powered by blists - more mailing lists