linux-kernel - Re: [RFC V2 1/2] irq: Add a framework to measure interrupt timings

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]

Date:	Wed, 20 Jan 2016 21:22:14 +0100 (CET)
From:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
cc:	Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>, rafael@...nel.org,
	linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	nicolas.pitre@...aro.org, vincent.guittot@...aro.org
Subject: Re: [RFC V2 1/2] irq: Add a framework to measure interrupt timings

On Wed, 20 Jan 2016, Peter Zijlstra wrote:

> On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 08:57:06PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > Here too, ktime_get() is daft.
> > 
> > What's the problem? ktime_xxx() itself or just the clock monotonic variant?
> > 
> > On 99.9999% of the platforms ktime_get_mono_fast/raw_fast is not any slower
> > than sched_clock(). The only case where sched_clock is faster is if your TSC
> > is buggered and the box switches to HPET for timekeeping.
> 
> The HPET thing, I just don't want to have to explain why this is so much
> more expensive on some random weird machine, esp. since it really
> doesn't matter.

Fair enough.