linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Optimize struct task_delay

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: <y0mzm21eb4y.fsf@ton.toronto.redhat.com>
Date:	12 Jul 2007 14:21:17 -0400
From:	fche@...hat.com (Frank Ch. Eigler)
To:	"Zhang, Yanmin" <yanmin_zhang@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, nagar@...son.ibm.com,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Optimize struct task_delay_info

"Zhang, Yanmin" <yanmin_zhang@...ux.intel.com> writes:

> [...]
> > > 2) Delete lock. [..]
> > > In addition, the result is for performance data collection, so it's
> > > unnecessary to add such lock.
> > Not sure that's a good idea. People expect their performance counts
> > to be accurate too. [...]
> [...]
> 2) If the reader could get the correct data when the process updates
> the data. It might be an issue. But the issue is not
> important. Mostly, the application tool reads the data in an
> interval.

Can you elaborate on that some more?  Is it OK for the sample
monitoring program to return inconsistent data sometimes?  Is there
reason to believe that this sample user-space program will remain the
sole consumer of this data?  Might a seqlock be appropriate here?

- FChE
-
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/