linux-kernel - Re: 2.6.20-rc6-mm2

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: <1170088688.29240.5.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Date:	Mon, 29 Jan 2007 17:38:08 +0100
From:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:	Karsten Wiese <fzu@...gehoertderstaat.de>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: 2.6.20-rc6-mm2

On Mon, 2007-01-29 at 17:22 +0100, Karsten Wiese wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> with dynticks and highres_timers enabled, cpufreq_ondemand makes mess here on
> an AMD64 UP.
> cpufreq_ondemand assumes that jiffies advance at exactly the same pace as the
> sum of all kstat_cpu(cpu).cpustat.* members.
> This isn't the case here as dmesg output from patch below shows.
> 
> Is cpufreq_ondemand correct assuming
>  "jiffies advance at exactly the same pace as the
>   sum of all kstat_cpu(cpu).cpustat.* members"?
> Or is "dynticks and highres_timers"'s behaviour of incrementing the
> sum of  kstat_cpu(cpu).cpustat.* members faster than jiffies?

No it should not. /me investigates.

	tglx


-
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/