linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] timers: Don't search for expired timers while TIMER

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:   Fri, 2 Mar 2018 10:29:56 -0600
From:   Haris Okanovic <haris.okanovic@...com>
To:     Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
Cc:     linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        tglx@...utronix.de, julia.cartwright@...com, gratian.crisan@...com,
        anna-maria@...utronix.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] timers: Don't search for expired timers while
 TIMER_SOFTIRQ is scheduled

> Could please point me to the code/patches or something?

I rebase onto v4.14.20-rt17, running some sanity test before reposting 
to ml (cyclictest & Anna's timertest). Will post V4 sometime today (US 
Central Time) if everything goes well.

Are you also asking for a 4.9 version? I'm fine leaving it out of 4.9.

-- Haris


On 03/02/2018 08:52 AM, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 2018-03-01 12:37:49 [-0600], Haris Okanovic wrote:
>> It was added back into 4.9 at some point after v4.9.30-rt20. I see an older
>> version in v4.9.68-rt60, for example, hence my original email. It was
>> dropped sometime thereafter, presumably because it no longer cleanly
>> applies. I don't see it in v4.14.20-rt17, for example.
> 
> It was removed in v4.9.34-rt24 via 95d4a348841d ("Revert "timers: Don't
> wake ktimersoftd on every tick""). I don't see any leftovers or an older
> version.
> Looking at the queue I see two patches from you and that is:
>   timers: Don't wake ktimersoftd on every tick
>   tpm_tis: fix stall after iowrite*()s
> 
> and the former is reverted. This was v4.9.84-rt62 that I've been looking
> at. Could please point me to the code/patches or something?
> 
>>> Is there a newer patch pending on your side?
>>
>> Not yet. The latest version on patchwork is OK, just needs to be rebased
>> post-4.9. I'll post a new version when I get a chance to build and retest
>> it.
> okay.
> 
> Sebastian
>