linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] timers: Make the lower-level timer function first call than higher-level

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

Message-ID: <CAPSr9jFNGxWZBhF8d9z6GbKVLp5oj-bn-=96DsRBfFJJ_Xn=Vg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 29 Nov 2018 00:51:36 +0800
From:   Muchun Song <smuchun@...il.com>
To:     tglx@...utronix.de
Cc:     John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>, sboyd@...nel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] timers: Make the lower-level timer function first call
 than higher-level

Hi tglx,

I'm sorry. Thanks for your reminder.

Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> 于2018年11月28日周三 下午11:15写道：
>
> Song,
>
> On Wed, 21 Nov 2018, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Tue, 20 Nov 2018, Muchun Song wrote:
> > > Follow the current code logic, the timer0 function is called until the
> > > function call of timer1-5 is completed. So the delay of timer0 is the time
> > > spent by other timer function calls. If we can call the timer function in
> > > the following order, this should be more friendly to lower-level timers.
> > >
> > >         timer0->timer1->->timer2->->timer3->->timer4->->timer5
> > >
> > > Although not friendly to higher-level timers, higher-level has larger
> > > granularity. Therefore the delay has less impact on higher-level.
> >
> > Well yes, that's clear. But is it a problem in practice and if so, what is
> > the measurable benefit.
>
> Polite reminder. Can you please describe what the practical relevance is of
> that and what real world problem you are solving? Ideally with numbers
> backing it up.
>

I just think that this change might be better for me when I read the code.
Maybe what I think is not a problem. So if there is something wrong,
please ignore the patch. Sorry.

Thanks.