linux-kernel - Re: [BUG] 2.6.37-rc3 massive interactivity regression on ARM

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: <20101210191720.GC28263@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
Date:	Fri, 10 Dec 2010 19:17:20 +0000
From:	Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	Venkatesh Pallipadi <venki@...gle.com>,
	Mikael Pettersson <mikpe@...uu.se>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	John Stultz <johnstul@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [BUG] 2.6.37-rc3 massive interactivity regression on ARM

On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 07:10:54PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-12-10 at 17:56 +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 02:47:46PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > >  inline void update_rq_clock(struct rq *rq)
> > >  {
> > > -	int cpu = cpu_of(rq);
> > > -	u64 irq_time;
> > > +	s64 delta;
> > >  
> > >  	if (rq->skip_clock_update)
> > >  		return;
> > >  
> > > -	rq->clock = sched_clock_cpu(cpu);
> > > -	irq_time = irq_time_cpu(cpu);
> > > -	if (rq->clock - irq_time > rq->clock_task)
> > > -		rq->clock_task = rq->clock - irq_time;
> > > +	delta = sched_clock_cpu(cpu_of(rq)) - rq->clock;
> > > +	rq->clock += delta;
> > 
> > Hmm.  Can you tell me how this is different to:
> > 
> > 	new_clock = sched_clock_cpu(cpu_of(rq));
> > 	delta = new_clock - rq->clock;
> > 	rq->clock = new_clock;
> > 
> > which I think may be simpler in terms of 64-bit math for 32-bit compilers
> > to deal with?
> 
> Its not, I could write it like that, the only reason I didn't is because
> it uses an extra variable. If gcc on 32bit targets really generates
> hideous code for it I'll happily change it.

Well, I can't tell you what kind of code this produces on ARM, as it
doesn't appear to apply to any kernel I've tried.  So, I assume it's
against some scheduler development tree rather than Linus' tree?
--
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/