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  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:	Thu, 06 Mar 2014 09:12:42 -0700
From:	Khalid Aziz <>
To:	David Lang <>, Kevin Easton <>
CC:	Andi Kleen <>,
	Thomas Gleixner <>,
	One Thousand Gnomes <>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <>, Ingo Molnar <>,,,,,
Subject: Re: [RFC] [PATCH] Pre-emption control for userspace

On 03/06/2014 07:25 AM, David Lang wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Mar 2014, Kevin Easton wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 04, 2014 at 04:51:15PM -0800, Andi Kleen wrote:
>>> Anything else?
>> If it was possible to make the time remaining in the current timeslice
>> available to userspace through the vdso, the thread could do something
>> like:
>> if (sys_timeleft() < CRITICAL_SECTION_SIZE)
>>    yield();
>> lock();
>> to avoid running out of timeslice in the middle of the critical section.
> but won't the system call result in context switches? According to
> Kevin, even a context switch to another thread and back immediatly is
> bad enough to need to be avoided, so replacing that with the context
> switch to the kernel and back isn't a subtantial win.
> David Lang

Using vdso reduces the cost of system call significantly, but as Peter 
pointed out a thread can not really rely upon the number it will get back.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists