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: <20070227052239.GA30083@stardust.friedrich-kn.de>
Date:	Tue, 27 Feb 2007 06:22:39 +0100
From:	Joerg Friedrich <Joerg.Friedrich@...edrich-kn.de>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:	j.j.green@...ffield.ac.uk, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, sparclinux@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: sparc64 / bbc_i2c.c

Hi David,

David Miller schrieb am Montag, 26. Februar 2007 um 10:12:19 -0800:
> From: "J.J.Green" <j.j.green@...ffield.ac.uk>
> Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2007 23:58:48 +0000 (GMT)
> 
> > Hi Andrew
> > 
> > > The code around there looks relatively unbuggy to me.  Removing that
> > > remove_wait_queue() would be very bad - it would cause later stack
> > > corruption.
> > >
> > > msleep_interruptible() certainly shouldn't consume CPU like that.  Do we
> > > know where the CPU time is being spent?  The output of:
> > >
> > > readprofile -r
> > > sleep 10
> > > readprofile -n -v -m /boot/System.map | sort -n -k 3 | tail -40
> > >
> > > would tell us.
> > 
> > As was mentioned in another reply, this message by
> > Joerg Friedrich
> > 
> >    http://lists.debian.org/debian-sparc/2007/02/msg00045.html
> > 
> > gives a possible explanantion of where the time is going.
> > I applied the patch to the debian kernel sources for 2.6.18,
> > it applied cleanly and fixed the problem.
> 
> I've added Joerg's patch to my tree and will push it into
> -stable as well.
> 
> Reviewing this patch had been sitting deep in my backlog for weeks, I
> just never got around to it, sorry.

Can you just tell me if it's sufficient to check for  a return value >0
of wait_event_interruptible_timeout? I was not sure so I extended the
check to 
if ((val != -ERESTARTSYS) && (val > 0))

-- 
Yours,
Jörg Friedrich

There are only 10 types of people:
Those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
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