| 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: <20090316085909.GK5712@suse.cz> Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 09:59:09 +0100 From: Vojtech Pavlik <vojtech@...e.cz> To: Yasunori Goto <y-goto@...fujitsu.com> Cc: Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@...driver.com>, clemens@...isch.de, Linux Kernel ML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, robert.picco@...com, venkatesh.pallipadi@...el.com, mingo@...hat.com Subject: Re: [Patch] Fix the possibility of insane return value of hpet_calibrate() against SMI. On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 11:34:55AM +0900, Yasunori Goto wrote: > > I've no sense of feel for how long each calibration run would take. > > Would doing it 5 times show up as a significant increase in the boot > > time for those that care about boot time being as quick as possible? > > Hmm. The loop times is trade off against reliable value.... > Though SMI is rare interruption, I don't know how frequent > hypervisor's switch is. > > Each calibration of this has 1 milli second. > Do you think 5 msec is too long? > If yes, how is 3 msec? Is it still too long? I would suggest to instead repeat until the total cycle count stops decreasing: That way we can avoid a SMI and yet in the best case only run the calibration 2 times. -- Vojtech Pavlik Director SuSE Labs -- 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