linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/2] Dynamic Tick: Enabling longer sleep times on 32-bit machines

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: <1257979042.3100.88.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Date:	Wed, 11 Nov 2009 14:37:21 -0800
From:	john stultz <johnstul@...ibm.com>
To:	Jon Hunter <jon-hunter@...com>
Cc:	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Dynamic Tick: Enabling longer sleep times on
 32-bit machines

On Wed, 2009-11-11 at 14:57 -0600, Jon Hunter wrote:
> john stultz wrote:
> > I could have sworn this was in mainline by now, but I recently was
> > looking for the code and can't find it there or in -tip either.
> > 
> > Thomas, are they just hiding somewhere I can't find?
> > 
> > Jon, you've been terribly patient and great about resubmitting these
> > patches over and over. If I'm not just being crazy and missing these
> > patches in front of my nose, are you still willing to submit them
> > again? I think they'll be quite useful as folks start pushing the NOHZ
> > idle times out.
> 
> Absolutely! It is still on my to-do list, but unfortunately, I got busy 
> with a couple other things.
> 
> With regard to the last patch set I submitted for this, Thomas had an 
> issue with one of the patches. I understand the concern, but I am not 
> sure  which would be the preferred way to handle this. See the below thread:
> 
> http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=125062817124381&w=2
> 
> If you or Thomas have any feedback on this, I could re-work the patch 
> against the latest kernel tree.

Ok. I think Thomas is right there, setting the expiration to
max_time_delta makes the most sense. Honestly I suspect we don't ever
hit that case in the current code (no timers for 12 days), so its
probably an untested code path as it stands.

thanks
-john

--
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/