linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] schedule_timeout

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, 22 Jul 2008 13:56:29 +1000
From:	Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
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] schedule_timeout_range()

On Tuesday 22 July 2008 13:05, David Woodhouse wrote:
> Along the same lines as the previous patch, this provides
> schedule_timeout_range() for when the precise moment of wakeup doesn't
> matter (and isn't worth wasting power on), but any time the CPU happens
> to be awake within a given range of time is fine.
>
> Implement schedule_timeout() using it, and likewise for the _killable,
> _interruptible and _uninterruptible variants.

Rather than specific "deadline" values (which we can't guarantee anyway),
or vague "can defer" values, I would prefer just a small selection of
maybe orders of magnitude flags, maybe SECONDS, MILLISECONDS, MICROSECONDS
which gives an amount of delay the kernel might add to the timer.

If you prefer the deadline parameter, don't call it a hard deadline
which is misleading.

Otherwise, seems like a pretty good idea.
--
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/