linux-kernel - Re: [patch] fix the softlockup watchdog to actually work

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: <469F8179.2060802@goop.org>
Date:	Thu, 19 Jul 2007 08:21:29 -0700
From:	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
CC:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	stable@...nel.org, Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>,
	Chris Wright <chrisw@...s-sol.org>
Subject: Re: [patch] fix the softlockup watchdog to actually work

Ingo Molnar wrote:
>> Well, my observation is that both softlockup and the scheduler really 
>> want to measure unstolen time, so it seemed to me that sched_clock was 
>> a nice common place to implement that, rather than implementing a 
>> whole new time interface.  At the time that seemed OK, and nobody had 
>> any objections.
>>     
>
> yeah. But then it should not be using sched_clock() but CFS's new 
> rq_clock() method - which does try to construct a globally valid 
> timesource out of sched_clock(). [that fix is not backportable though]
>   

Hm, that doesn't look quite right.  Doesn't rq_clock measure time spent
running?  Unstolen time includes idle time too (it just excludes time in
which a VCPU is runnable but not actually running).

    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/