linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 9/11] Panic delay fix

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:	Thu, 15 Feb 2007 00:33:39 +0000
From:	Alan <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To:	Zachary Amsden <zach@...are.com>
Cc:	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
	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

On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 13:53:08 -0800
Zachary Amsden <zach@...are.com> wrote:

> > IDE on several platforms has performance critical paths that use
> > ndelay(400) or failing that udelay(1)
> 
> Ok, I buy that.  A 486DX / 33 Mhz processor takes 10 cycles to issue a 
> CALL / RET pair.  This is about 300ns.  Is there an issue with being too 
> early to issue I/O operations or too late?

Too early you lose, too late you just waste clock time.

> But I fail to see how such careful timing can be done at this 
> granularity on such hardware without well tweaked assembly code. 

Thats what is used  most platforms use udelay(1) in fact however
-
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/