linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] Imprecise timers.

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: <488589E6.5070300@keyaccess.nl>
Date:	Tue, 22 Jul 2008 09:19:02 +0200
From:	Rene Herman <rene.herman@...access.nl>
To:	David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>
CC:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, arjan@...radead.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] Imprecise timers.

On 22-07-08 05:02, David Woodhouse wrote:

> Many users of timers don't really care too much about exactly when
> their timer fires -- and waking a CPU to satisfy such a timer is a
> waste of power. This patch implements a 'range' timer which will fire
> at a 'convenient' moment within given constraints.
> 
> It's implemented by a deferrable timer at the beginning of the range,
> which will run some time later when the CPU happens to be awake. And
> a non-deferrable timer at the hard deadline, to ensure it really does
> happen by then.

Are there actually users for this (not just in theory)? The deferrable 
timer sort of sounds like all I'd ever want if I, as you say, wouldn't 
really care...

Rene.
--
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/