linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 0/2] Historical Service Time Path Selector

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]

Message-ID: <85blmul37m.fsf@collabora.com>
Date:   Mon, 11 May 2020 14:46:21 -0400
From:   Gabriel Krisman Bertazi <krisman@...labora.com>
To:     Mike Snitzer <snitzer@...hat.com>
Cc:     agk@...hat.com, dm-devel@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        song@...nel.org, breeves@...hat.com, mpatocka@...hat.com,
        khazhy@...gle.com, kernel@...labora.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/2] Historical Service Time Path Selector

Mike Snitzer <snitzer@...hat.com> writes:

> OK, that concall's issue had nothing to do with needing higher
> resolution time (was about IOPs realized with requested-based vs
> bio-based).
>
> Reality is, DM won't need anything higher resolution than jiffies until
> block core's interfaces require something other than jiffies
> (e.g. generic_end_io_acct).
>
> So feel free to proceed with the conditional time fetch solution you
> were going to run with (prior to my previous mail asking you to hold
> off).
>
> Sorry for the noise.  Thanks,
> Mike

No problem, thanks for the information.  I get started on it.


-- 
Gabriel Krisman Bertazi