linux-kernel - Re: Linux 3.1-rc9

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: <alpine.LFD.2.02.1110171101250.3240@ionos>
Date:	Mon, 17 Oct 2011 11:03:10 +0200 (CEST)
From:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Simon Kirby <sim@...tway.ca>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>,
	Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Linux 3.1-rc9

On Mon, 17 Oct 2011, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> For the record, i absolutely hate much of the other time related type 
> obfuscation we do as well.
> 
> For example the ktime_t obfuscation - we only do it to avoid a divide 
> on 32-bit architectures that cannot do fast 64/32 divisions ...
> 
> It makes the time code a *lot* less obvious than it could be.
> 
> I think we should use one flat u64 nanoseconds time type in the 
> kernel (preparing it with using KTIME_SCALAR on all architectures for 
> a release or so), used with very simple and obvious C arithmetics.

It'd be nice, but this simply will not fly.
 
> That simple time type could then trickle down as well: we could use 
> it everywhere in kernel code and limit the hodge-podge of ABI time 
> units to the syscall boundary. (and convert the internal time unit to 
> whatever ABI unit there is close to the syscall boundary)
> 
> There's a point where micro-optimized 32-bit support related 
> maintenance overhead (and the resulting loss of 
> robustness/flexibility) becomes too expensive IMO.

That's not a micro optimization, it's a massive performance hit if you
force those 32bit archs to do 64/32 all over the place.

Thanks,

	tglx
--
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/