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: <1158166a0708091231r21903840mc927b6baa47e4598@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 9 Aug 2007 20:31:28 +0100
From:	"Denis Vlasenko" <vda.linux@...glemail.com>
To:	"Arjan van de Ven" <arjan@...radead.org>
Cc:	"Roman Zippel" <zippel@...ux-m68k.org>,
	"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 8/8/07, Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org> wrote:
> You keep claiming that hrtimers are so incredibly expensive; but for
> msleep()... which is mostly called during driver init ... I really don't
> buy that it's really expensive. We're not doing this a gazilion times
> per second obviously...

Yes. Optimizing delay or sleep functions for speed is a contradiction
of terms. IIRC we still optimize udelay for speed, not code size...
Read it again folks:

        We optimize udelay for speed

How fast your udelay do you want to be today?

Oh well.
--
vda
-
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/