linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] hrtimer: Avoid double reprogramming in __hrtimer_start_range

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: <875yzl3yi0.ffs@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
Date:   Fri, 14 May 2021 21:29:27 +0200
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@...gle.com>,
        Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Maciej Żenczykowski <zenczykowski@...il.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Anna-Maria Behnsen <anna-maria@...utronix.de>,
        lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        mikael.beckius@...driver.com,
        Maciej Żenczykowski <maze@...gle.com>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] hrtimer: Avoid double reprogramming in __hrtimer_start_range_ns()

On Mon, Apr 26 2021 at 14:25, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 11:40:46AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> There is an unfortunate amount of duplication between
>> hrtimer_force_reprogram() and hrtimer_reprogram(). The obvious cleanups
>> don't work however :/ Still, does that in_hrtirq optimization make sense
>> to have in force_reprogram ?

No. It need's to be in hrtimer_programm().