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:	Wed, 9 Apr 2014 11:29:50 -0400
From:	Steven Rostedt <>
To:	Viresh Kumar <>
Cc:	Thomas Gleixner <>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <>,
	Matthew Whitehead <>,
	John Stultz <>,
	"" <>,
Subject: Re: nohz problem with idle time on old hardware

On Wed, 9 Apr 2014 20:50:59 +0530
Viresh Kumar <> wrote:

> On 9 April 2014 20:01, Steven Rostedt <> wrote:
> > Ouch! You are correct, this part of the patch makes no sense. That's
> > what I get for reviewing a patch and not looking at all the code around
> > the changes. (another kernel developer hangs head in shame :-( )
> >
> > I think that if statement should be nuked.
> Hmm, my opinion differs here :)
> If we completely remove this statement, we will run
> tick_nohz_switch_to_nohz() even if nohz is not enabled. And check for
> enabled must stay.

Do we? This is only called by tick_check_oneshot_change() which has the

int tick_check_oneshot_change(int allow_nohz)
	struct tick_sched *ts = &__get_cpu_var(tick_cpu_sched);

	if (!test_and_clear_bit(0, &ts->check_clocks))
		return 0;

	if (ts->nohz_mode != NOHZ_MODE_INACTIVE)
		return 0;

	if (!timekeeping_valid_for_hres() || !tick_is_oneshot_available())
		return 0;

	if (!allow_nohz)
		return 1;

	return 0;

How often does it make it to that last check?

-- Steve
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