linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] i386 tsc: remove xtime_lock'ing around cpufreq notifier

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 12 Apr 2007 12:41:47 -0700
From:	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
To:	Andi Kleen <ak@...ell.com>
CC:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Daniel Walker <dwalker@...sta.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, johnstul@...ibm.com,
	tglx@...utronix.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH] i386 tsc: remove xtime_lock'ing around cpufreq notifier

Andi Kleen wrote:
> They should always just store the cpu too and educate the users that
> only (cpu, timestamp) pairs make sense to compare.
>
> That said at least my new sched_clock should not normally show 
> large non differences between CPUs, so it can be usually ignored, but they can 
> happen. I believe some of the already existing sched_clocks() (like the
> one used on Altix) have the same property. 
>
> But on VMI/Xen as currently implemented the differences will be large.

Yes, it's pretty much unavoidable.  It seems to me that these
non-scheduler uses of sched_clock should use something else.  Or we
could add a new clock function for the scheduler to use, but
"sched_clock" seems like the best name for it.

    J
-
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/