linux-kernel - Re: some thoughts about TSC based delay

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 21 Nov 2007 22:06:34 +0200
From:	Marin Mitov <mitov@...p.bas.bg>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: some thoughts about TSC based delay_tsc()

On Wednesday 21 November 2007 09:27:54 pm you wrote:
> * Marin Mitov <mitov@...p.bas.bg> wrote:
> > Hi Ingo,
> >
> > The patch is quite good ;-) but we forget when it is needed :-( In
> > fact we need it only for PREEMPT SMP kernels - it could hurt PREEMPT
> > UP kernels (no migration possible), so no need for
> > preempt_disable()/preempt_enable().
> >
> > In short the old version of delay_tsc() is good for UP kernels and NON
> > PREEMPT SMP kernels too.
>
> please reply to the public list, so that discussions do not get lost.
>
> i dont think there's any problem: udelay() is about _wasting_ cycles -
> it's what drivers use for short delays.

Sure for the thread executing udelay(), but not for the other ready threads 
which should also wait till preempt_enable() to grab the same cpu even 
for PREEMPT (UP or SMP) kernels (or I misunderstand something?).

Marin 
>
> 	Ingo


-
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/