linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/4] Make net watchdog timers 1 sec jiffy aligned

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: <465DD142.6040409@trash.net>
Date:	Wed, 30 May 2007 21:32:18 +0200
From:	Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>
To:	Venki Pallipadi <venkatesh.pallipadi@...el.com>
CC:	Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] Make net watchdog timers 1 sec jiffy aligned

Venki Pallipadi wrote:
> On Wed, May 30, 2007 at 08:42:32PM +0200, Patrick McHardy wrote:
> 
>>
>>It seems wasteful to add per-packet overhead for tx timeouts, which
>>should be an exception. Do drivers really care about the exact
>>timeout value? Compared to a packet transmission time its incredibly
>>long anyways ..
> 
> 
> I agree. Doing a mod_timer or hrtimer_forward to push forward may add to the
> complexity depending on how often TX happens.
> 
> Are the drivers really worried about exact timeouts here?


Just guessing, but I don't think they are, after all timers can be late.

> Can we use rounding for the timers that are more than a second, at least?


Also sounds reasonable.
-
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/