linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] mod_timer() helper functions?

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <a24804730905202211w77f2d0bay96d22b05e9c45d81@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 20 May 2009 22:11:44 -0700
From:	Chris Peterson <cpeterso@...terso.com>
To:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, tglx@...utronix.de
Subject: Re: [RFC] mod_timer() helper functions?

>> int timer_settime_msecs(struct timer_list *timer, int msecs)
>
> At least this function needs something that indicates it is very approximate
> (upto 900% error for 1ms with HZ=100)
> The old open coded pattern showed this.

I see your point. But doesn't the open coded pattern with jiffies
imply an even greater timer precision than milliseconds? Or does
mod_timer()'s use of an expiration time instead of a time delay avoid
promising more precision than it can provide?

Quite of a few mod_timer() calls already try to schedule precise
timeouts in terms of HZ/10 or HZ/20.

chris
--
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/