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, 10 Apr 2019 18:31:21 +0000
From:   <>
To:     <>
CC:     <>, <>,
        <>, <>,
        <>, <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] staging: wilc1000: give usleep_range a range

Hi Nicolas

On 4/8/19 6:36 PM, Nicholas Mc Guire wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 08, 2019 at 09:10:00PM +0000, wrote:
>> Hi Nicholas
>> On 4/6/19 5:01 AM, Nicholas Mc Guire wrote:
>>> External E-Mail
>>> Someone that knows the motivation for setting the time to 2 millisecond
>>> might need to check if the 2 milliseconds where seen as tollerable max or
>>> min - I'm assuming it was the min so extending.
>> 2 msec is the time the chip takes to wake up from sleep.
>> Increasing the maximum to 5 msec will impact the throughput since this call is on the transmit path.
> ok - would it be tollerable to make it 2 - 2.5 ms ?
> even that would allow for the hrtimer subsystem to optimize
> a lot. In any case the min==max case gives you very little
> if you run a test-case with usleep_range(1000,1000) and
> a loop with usleep_range(1000,2000) and look at the distribution
> you will have a hard time seeing any difference.

yes, I believe 2.5 shouldn't be a problem.



Powered by blists - more mailing lists