| 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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 12:52:16 +0000 From: Alan <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk> To: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au> Cc: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, Zachary Amsden <zach@...are.com>, Andi Kleen <ak@....de>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>, Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>, Chris Wright <chrisw@...s-sol.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH 9/11] Panic delay fix > We'd have to audit and figure out what udelays are for hardware and > which are not, but the evidence is that the vast majority of them are > for hardware and not needed for virtualization. Which is irrelevant since the hardware drivers won't be used in a virtualised environment with any kind of performance optimisation. > Changing udelay to "hardware_udelay" or something all over the kernel > would have delayed the paravirt_ops merge by an infinite amount 8) paravirt_ops has no business fiddling with udelay. Not only does it create more code bloat and stalls in relatively fast paths but its optimising the wrong thing anyway. My performance sucks -> optimise out udelay is the wrong approach. My performance sucks, switch to the virtual block driver is the right approach, and a virtual block driver won't be using udelay anyway Alan - 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