linux-kernel - Re: is minimum udelay() not respected in preemptible SMP kernel-2.6.23?

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:	Wed, 7 Nov 2007 18:20:27 -0600
From:	Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Marin Mitov <mitov@...p.bas.bg>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>
Subject: Re: is minimum udelay() not respected in preemptible SMP kernel-2.6.23?

On Wed, Nov 07, 2007 at 12:30:45PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Ow.  Yes, from my reading delay_tsc() can return early (or after
> heat-death-of-the-universe) if the TSCs are offset and if preemption
> migrates the calling task between CPUs.
> 
> I suppose a lameo fix would be to disable preemption in delay_tsc().

preempt_disable is lousy documentation here. This and other cases
(lots of per_cpu users, IIRC) actually want a migrate_disable() which
is a proper subset. We can simply implement migrate_disable() as
preempt_disable() for now and come back later and implement a proper
migrate_disable() that still allows preemption (and thus avoids the
latency).

-- 
Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time.
-
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/