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:   Thu, 30 Mar 2017 16:18:17 +0200
From:   Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
To:     Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@...il.com>
Cc:     Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
        Luiz Capitulino <lcapitulino@...hat.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [BUG nohz]: wrong user and system time accounting

On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 09:59:54PM +0800, Wanpeng Li wrote:
> 2017-03-30 21:38 GMT+08:00 Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>:
> > If it works, we may want to take that solution, likely less performance sensitive
> > than using sched_clock(). In fact sched_clock() is fast, especially as we require it to
> > be stable for nohz_full, but using it involves costly conversion back and forth to jiffies.
> 
> So both Rik and you agree with the skew tick solution, I will try it
> tomorrow. Btw, if we should just add random offset to the cpu in the
> nohz_full mode or add random offset to all cpus like the codes above?

Lets just keep it to all CPUs for simplicty.
Also please add a comment that explains why we need that skew_tick on nohz_full.

Thanks!

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ