linux-kernel - Re: Proposal: Use hi-res clock for file timestamps

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: <AANLkTin2P5kcrC1SU-ANffSHyW8Ar4x4+qFuqVMFhYJE@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Fri, 13 Aug 2010 11:45:54 -0700
From:	john stultz <johnstul@...ibm.com>
To:	"Patrick J. LoPresti" <lopresti@...il.com>
Cc:	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Proposal: Use hi-res clock for file timestamps

On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 11:25 AM, Patrick J. LoPresti
<lopresti@...il.com> wrote:
> 3) On the 99.99% of Linux systems that are post-1990 x86, it is not
> slow at all, and the performance difference will be utterly
> undetectable in the real world.

Your stats are off here. The only fast clocksource on x86 is the TSC,
and its busted on many, many systems. The cpu vendors have only
recently taken it seriously and resolved the majority of problems
(however, issues still remain on large numa systems, but its much
better then the story was 3-7 years ago).

On those TSC broken systems that use the hpet or acpi_pm, a
getnstimeofday call can take 0.5-1.3us, so the penalty can be quite
severe. And even with the TSC, expect some performance impact, as
reading hardware and doing the multiply is more costly then just
fetching a value from memory.

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/