linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] msleep() with hrtimers

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: <1186415621.2706.4.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org>
Date:	Mon, 06 Aug 2007 08:53:41 -0700
From:	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
To:	Roman Zippel <zippel@...ux-m68k.org>
Cc:	Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] msleep() with hrtimers

On Mon, 2007-08-06 at 12:03 +0200, Roman Zippel wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Sun, 5 Aug 2007, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> 
> > > There's no problem to provide a high resolution sleep, but there is also 
> > > no reason to mess with msleep, don't fix what ain't broken...
> > 
> > John Corbet provided the patch because he had a problem with the current
> > msleep... in that it didn't provide as good a common case as he
> > wanted... so I think your statement is wrong ;)
> 
> Only under the assumptation, that msleep _must_ be "fixed" for all other 
> current users too.
> Give users a choice to use msleep or nanosleep, how do you know what's 
> "best" for them?

do you have any actual technical objections, or do you just hate
hrtimers in general?

I really don't see what you hate so much about making the msleep()
implementation provide a more precise (typical sleep time of 1msec
rather than 20msec) behavior than the current one. Trying to distract
that by proposing a very different API (working on a totally different
time unit, while a lot of kernel users are using miliseconds; don't get
me wrong, a usleep() and nsleep() might be useful if there's users that
want to sleep in such times) is just trying to distract the issue.

So, let me ask a direct question: What do you think is specifically
wrong about changing the msleep() implementation as is done here? The
behavior is clearly an improvement, so what is your objection on the
flipside?

-- 
if you want to mail me at work (you don't), use arjan (at) linux.intel.com
Test the interaction between Linux and your BIOS via http://www.linuxfirmwarekit.org

-
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/