linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 33/36] AArch64: Generic timers support

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: <20120713160233.GB5544@arm.com>
Date:	Fri, 13 Jul 2012 17:02:34 +0100
From:	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
To:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc:	John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
	Marc Zyngier <Marc.Zyngier@....com>,
	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
	Deepak Saxena <dsaxena@...aro.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Linus Walleij <linus.ml.walleij@...il.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Will Deacon <Will.Deacon@....com>,
	Mike Turquette <mike.turquette@...aro.org>,
	Marc Zyngier <maz@...terjones.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 33/36] AArch64: Generic timers support

On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 01:40:03PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Thursday 12 July 2012, John Stultz wrote:
> > 
> > On 07/12/2012 10:31 AM, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> > > On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 09:57:33 -0700, John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> So following ia64's method is probably better then copying the 8253's
> > >> rate if you're not concerned about tick-granularity error.
> > > The 8253 is completely meaningless in our case (though I'm sure someone
> > > could try and bold one on the side of an Aarch64 CPU...), so going the ia64
> > > way is probably best (erm... this last bit doesn't sound quite right,
> > > doesn't it?).
> > 
> > Sorry, the "copying the 8253's" bit didn't come out sarcastic enough.  :)
> > 
> > The best solution would be to include the actual tick-granularity, but 
> > given its not really an architecture constant (which CLOCK_TICK_RATE 
> > assumes), that probably wouldn't be appropriate.
> 
> Hmm, in the quest to eliminate CLOCK_TICK_RATE entirely, could we
> make a Kconfig symbol that is selected for all architectures that
> (may) rely on a periodic timer tick and require this to be set?
> 
> Architectures that always have a working clock source would then just
> not include the timex.h header and #define ACT_HZ HZ in common code.

Would something like below be enough?

Also, are there any implications if we boot with clocksource=jiffies?

--- a/include/linux/jiffies.h
+++ b/include/linux/jiffies.h
@@ -55,7 +55,11 @@
                              + ((((NOM) % (DEN)) << (LSH)) + (DEN) / 2) / (DEN))
 
 /* HZ is the requested value. ACTHZ is actual HZ ("<< 8" is for accuracy) */
+#ifdef CLOCK_TICK_RATE
 #define ACTHZ (SH_DIV (CLOCK_TICK_RATE, LATCH, 8))
+#else
+#define ACTHZ (HZ << 8)
+#endif
 
 /* TICK_NSEC is the time between ticks in nsec assuming real ACTHZ */
 #define TICK_NSEC (SH_DIV (1000000UL * 1000, ACTHZ, 8))

-- 
Catalin
--
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/