linux-kernel - RE: msleep() an load average

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]

Date:	Wed, 4 May 2011 15:54:58 +0200
From:	"Eibach, Dirk" <Eibach@...ys.de>
To:	"Jiri Slaby" <jirislaby@...il.com>
Cc:	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: msleep() an load average


> > while(1) msleep_interruptible(1000);
> > 
> > I appreciate their admiration, but still there are doubts 
> in my mind: 
> > Is this code really any better?
> 
> Try to send it a signal, it will eat 100% of CPU without sleeping.

As I am a great kernel hacker, all signals are blocked ;)

> > Is the loadavg metric broken beyond repair?
> 
> No, this is expected behaviour. Uninterruptible sleeps count 
> as I/O load.

Ah, now we come to the point. Is there any practical reason behind this
or was it just an igenious invention to annoy those smug userspace
developers? I don't see any real world I/O load here.

> regards,
> --
> js

Cheers
Dirk


--
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/