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: <20070807162940.74f536f8.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Tue, 7 Aug 2007 16:29:40 -0700
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Roman Zippel <zippel@...ux-m68k.org>
Cc:	Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] msleep() with hrtimers

On Wed, 8 Aug 2007 01:16:49 +0200 (CEST)
Roman Zippel <zippel@...ux-m68k.org> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> On Tue, 7 Aug 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
> 
> > I'd be surprised if there was significant overhead - the maximum frequency
> > at which msleep() can be called is 1000Hz.  We'd need an awful lot of
> > overhead for that to cause problems, surely?
> > 
> > <thinks he's missing something again>
> 
> _Anybody_ has yet to answer what's wrong with adding a nanosleep() and 
> using that instead.
> 

You mean that the implementation could be simplified if msleep() were to
simply call do_nanosleep()?

That would work, although a bit of refactoring would be needed so that we
could implement the TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE msleep() that way.

-
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/