linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] Deferrable timers support for timerfd API

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: <52F2B504.5010403@linaro.org>
Date:	Wed, 05 Feb 2014 14:02:44 -0800
From:	John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>
To:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Alexey Perevalov <a.perevalov@...sung.com>
CC:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, anton@...msg.org,
	kyungmin.park@...sung.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	cw00.choi@...sung.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] Deferrable timers support for timerfd API

On 02/05/2014 01:41 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Feb 2014, Alexey Perevalov wrote:
>> On 02/04/2014 08:10 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>>> On Mon, 27 Jan 2014, Alexey Perevalov wrote:
>>>> On 01/21/2014 11:12 PM, John Stultz wrote:
>>>>> Thomas: Any thought here? Should we be trying to unify the timerfd flags
>>>>> and the posix timer flags (specifically things like TIMER_CANCEL_ON_SET,
>>>>> which is currently timerfd-only)?  Should a deferrable flag be added to
>>>>> the hrtimer core or left to the timer wheel?
>>> The timer cancel on set was added only to timerfd because timerfd is a
>>> non posix interface and we are halfways free to add stuff to
>>> it. Adding extra flags to the real posix timer interfaces is a
>>> different story.
>> And what about "deferrable" possibility for hrtimers, do you consider it
>> reasonable?
> In principle, I have no objections, but we need a proper technical
> solution. Just adding a flag and keeping the timers in the same rbtree
> like we do for the timer wheel timers is not going to happen.
>
> The only feasible solution is to have separate clock ids,
> e.g. CLOCK_*_DEFERRABLE, which would enable the deferrable
> functionality for all user space interfaces. No need for magic flags
> and complex search for non deferrable timers.

So of course, I was actually arguing against having a new clockid (which
was Alexey's first approach).

My reasoning was that the deferrablity isn't a clock domain, and is more
of a modifier. Thus to keep the interfaces somewhat sane (and avoiding
having to add N new clockids for each new modifier), we should utilize
the flag arguments to timers. So instead of just having TIMER_ABSTIME,
we could add TIMER_DEFER, etc, which we could utilize instead.

Internally we can still keep separate bases, much as your patch does, to
keep the next-event searching overhead more limited.

I mainly wanted to get your thoughts on extending the flags, and doing
so in a consistent manner between the timerfd and other timer interfaces.

Of course, all this is after I added the _ALARM clockids... so you can
decide if its hypocrisy or experience.
(The "old wisdom comes from experience and experience comes from bad
decisions" bit ;).

thanks
-john

--
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/