linux-kernel - Re: [patch 14/55] timekeeping: Provide internal ktime

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 16 Jul 2014 09:20:17 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:	John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd.bergmann@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [patch 14/55] timekeeping: Provide internal ktime_t based data

On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 09:12:52AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> Looking into it I think for now it's the least risky approach to keep
> the core logic based on the timespec stuff unmodified and update the
> ktime_t members in timekeeping_update(). Converting the whole thing to
> a pure nsec based mechanism and update the timespec stuff in
> timekeeping_update() needs a lot more thought and we should do that
> later on. It wont change any of the interfaces.

So I don't think you can only do nsec, seeing how the conversion from
nsec to timespec is expensive. So if we want to also avoid the timespec
-> nsec conversion we need to keep both, no two ways around it.

That said the timespec -> nsec conversion is heaps cheaper, although
still not what you call really sheep ;-)


Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped