| 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, 16 Jul 2007 13:57:44 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> To: Roman Zippel <zippel@...ux-m68k.org> Cc: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC] msleep() with hrtimers * Roman Zippel <zippel@...ux-m68k.org> wrote: > > > One possible problem here is that setting up that timer can be > > > considerably more expensive, for a relative timer you have to read > > > the current time, which can be quite expensive (e.g. your machine > > > now uses the PIT timer, because TSC was deemed unstable). > > > > i dont think there's any significant overhead. The OLPC folks are > > pretty sensitive to performance, so if there was any genuine > > measurable overhead due to this, i'd expect them to report it. And > > even if there _was_ overhead, it would be well worth its price, the > > legacies of HZ are clearly biting the OLPC project here. The sooner > > we get rid of HZ dependencies and HZ artifacts, the better. > > How is a sleep function relevant to performace? i'm not sure how your question relates/connects to what i wrote above, could you please re-phrase your question into a bit more verbose form so that i can answer it? Thanks, Ingo - 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