linux-kernel - Re: PROBLEM: high load average when idle

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]

Date:	Tue, 02 Oct 2007 15:39:19 -0700
From:	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
CC:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Anders Bostr?m <anders@...trom.dyndns.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: PROBLEM: high load average when idle

Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 
> I wonder if the whole "round_jiffies()" thing should be written so that it 
> never rounds down, or at least never rounds down to before the current 
> second!

that's what it is supposed to do already...

166
167         if (j <= jiffies) /* rounding ate our timeout entirely; */
168                 return original;
169         return j;
170 }

so there is always a gap of at least 1 jiffie no matter what


> 
> I have to say, I also think it's a bit iffy to do "round_jiffies()" at all 
> in that per-CPU kind of way. The "per-cpu" thing is quite possibly going 
> to change by the time we actually add the timer, so the goal of trying to 
> get wakeups to happen in "bunches" per CPU should really be done by 
> setting a flag on the timer itself - so that we could do that rounding 
> when the timer is actually added to the per-cpu queues!

it's pretty much the same thing though
-
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/