linux-kernel - RE: RFC: better timer interface

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 23 May 2017 15:02:05 +0200 (CEST)
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:     David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
cc:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        linux-s390 <linux-s390@...r.kernel.org>,
        Mark Gross <mark.gross@...el.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
        linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Subject: RE: RFC: better timer interface

On Tue, 23 May 2017, David Laight wrote:
> From: Thomas Gleixner
> > Sent: 23 May 2017 12:59
> > On Tue, 23 May 2017, David Laight wrote:
> > 
> > > From: Thomas Gleixner
> > > > Sent: 21 May 2017 19:15
> > > ...
> > > > > timer_start(timer, ms, abs)
> > > >
> > > > I'm not even sure, whether we need absolute timer wheel timers at
> > > > all, because most use cases are relative to now.
> > >
> > > Posix requires absolute timers for some userspace calls
> > > (annoying because the code often wants relative).
> > 
> > Posix is completely irrelevant here. These timers are purely kernel
> > internal.
> 
> Somehow pthread_cond_timedwait() has to be implemented.
> Doing so without kernel timers that use absolute 'wall clock' time is tricky.

Oh well. The timer wheel timers are NOT used to implement any posix
interface. That's all handled by hrtimers and they are not debated here.

So still nothing to see here.

Thanks,

	tglx