linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/4] Blackfin: arch patch for 2.6.18

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:	Tue, 26 Sep 2006 11:43:59 +0200
From:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:	Aubrey <aubreylee@...il.com>
Cc:	"Luke Yang" <luke.adi@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	"Andrew Morton" <akpm@...l.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] Blackfin: arch patch for 2.6.18

On Tuesday 26 September 2006 05:42, Aubrey wrote:
> So, in the kernel space, there is always one bit in the IPEND register
> is set. And if there comes a timer interrupt event, in the timer
> interrupt handler, there should be two bits set in the IPEND register.
> Therefore, schedule happens in the return_from_int.
> 
> So, I still say there is no latency here.
> 

Well, if that's true, you should change your idle function not to
explicitly call schedule().

I haven't really understood how you preempt the idle task, but
I guess you can simplify the standard

| while (1) {
|	while (!need_resched())
|		asm("idle");
|	schedule();
| }

to 

| while (1)
| 	asm("idle");


	Arnd <><
-
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/