| 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: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 12:20:45 +0100 From: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org> To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mm-commits@...r.kernel.org, npiggin@...e.de, drepper@...hat.com, oleg@...sign.ru, sebastien.dugue@...l.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [patch] change futex_wait() to hrtimers > if HIGH_RES_TIMERS is disabled then that is what happens. But frankly, disabled? I would expect it (= more wakeups) when hrtimers are enabled. > most futex waits are without timeouts - if an application cares about > micro-effects like that then you are much better off not using a > per-futex timeout anywa That sounds like you're arguing for not using hrtimers here because the applications shouldn't depend on precise timeouts here anyways?!? Anyways when you convert more kernel timeouts to hrtimers you should probably add some kind of batching facility that can be globally configured with a sysctl or similar. Then at least laptops (and possibly servers) can opt for more power saving again. For the futexes alone it probably won't matter too much agreed, but I see a trend to more hr. I also liked the idea (stolen from another popular OS) that a application can tell the OS how precise it wants its wakeups to be. -Andi - 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