| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20080623110706.197f25b1@infradead.org> Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2008 11:07:06 -0700 From: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org> To: Darren Hart <dvhltc@...ibm.com> Cc: paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...e.hu, josh@...edesktop.org, niv@...ibm.com, dino@...ibm.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, vegard.nossum@...il.com, adobriyan@...il.com, oleg@...sign.ru, bunk@...nel.org, rjw@...k.pl Subject: Re: [PATCH -tip-rcu] Make rcutorture more vicious: make quiescent rcutorture less power-hungry On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 17:54:09 +0000 Darren Hart <dvhltc@...ibm.com> wrote: > I'm a little concerned about how this will affect real-time > performance, as queueing up lots of timers all at once can lead to > long running timer expiration handlers. If just a schedule_timeout, > I suppose we are only looking at a process wakeup, as opposed to a > softirq context callback function? in reality, the time it takes to deliver the interrupt (including waking the CPU up etc), is likely to be an order or two of magnitude higher than this kind of code loop.... -- If you want to reach me at my work email, use arjan@...ux.intel.com For development, discussion and tips for power savings, visit http://www.lesswatts.org -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists