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: <20070201131715.GM21755@dwarf.suse.cz>
Date:	Thu, 1 Feb 2007 14:17:15 +0100
From:	Jiri Bohac <jbohac@...e.cz>
To:	Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>
Cc:	jbohac@...e.cz, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Vojtech Pavlik <vojtech@...e.cz>, ssouhlal@...ebsd.org,
	arjan@...radead.org, tglx@...utronix.de, johnstul@...ibm.com,
	zippel@...ux-m68k.org, andrea@...e.de
Subject: Re: [patch 4/9] Remove the TSC synchronization on SMP machines

On Thu, Feb 01, 2007 at 12:14:23PM +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Thursday 01 February 2007 10:59, jbohac@...e.cz wrote:
> > TSC is either synchronized by design or not reliable
> > to be used for anything, let alone timekeeping.
> 
> In my tree this is already done better by a patch from Ingo.
> Check if they look synchronized and don't use TSC if they are not.

The whole purpose of this patchset is to make use of TSC even if
it's not synchronized.

Synchronizing it will not make anything better in any way -- the
implementation just does not care whether TSCs are synchronized.
That's why I think the synchronization code is not needed.

-- 
Jiri Bohac <jbohac@...e.cz>
SUSE Labs, SUSE CZ

-
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/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ