linux-kernel - Re: [RFC patch 0/8] timekeeping: Implement shadow timekeeper to shorten in kernel reader side blocking

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: <1361488009.32484.1.camel@edumazet-glaptop>
Date:	Thu, 21 Feb 2013 15:06:49 -0800
From:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC patch 0/8] timekeeping: Implement shadow timekeeper to
 shorten in kernel reader side blocking

On Thu, 2013-02-21 at 22:51 +0000, Thomas Gleixner wrote:

> Now the obvious question whether this is worth the trouble can be
> answered easily. Preempt-RT users and HPC folks have complained about
> the long write hold time of the timekeeping seqcount since years and a
> quick test on a preempt-RT enabled kernel shows, that this series
> lowers the maximum latency on the non-timekeeping cores from 8 to 4
> microseconds. That's a whopping factor of 2. Defintely worth the
> trouble!

Thanks for doing this !


--
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/