linux-kernel - Re: [patch] dubious process system time.

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]

Message-ID: <p731wr6fh54.fsf@verdi.suse.de>
Date:	24 Aug 2006 14:32:55 +0200
From:	Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>
To:	Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch] dubious process system time.

Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com> writes:

> From: Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>
> 
> [patch] dubious process system time.
> 
> The system time that is accounted to a process includes the time spent
> in three different contexts: normal system time, hardirq time and
> softirq time. To account hardirq time and sortirq time to a process
> seems wrong, because the process could just happen to run when the
> interrupt arrives that was caused by an i/o for a completly different
> process. And the sum over stime and cstime of all processes won't
> match cputstat->system either. 
> The following patch changes the accounting of system time so that
> hardirq and softirq time are not accounted to a process anymore.

So where does it get accounted then? It has to be accounted somewhere.
Sounds like a quite radical change to me, might break a lot of 
existing assumptions.

-Andi
-
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/