linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] ACPI: Replace msleep() with usleep_range() in acpi_os

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: <CAJvTdKkYKj-PQhzQgDVGnx=oTwK5ufWNsLxOLtzDwQPGpteVfg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2024 05:33:45 -0500
From: Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
Cc: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>, anna-maria@...utronix.de, tglx@...utronix.de, 
	peterz@...radead.org, frederic@...nel.org, corbet@....net, 
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>, Todd Brandt <todd.e.brandt@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] ACPI: Replace msleep() with usleep_range() in acpi_os_sleep().

On Wed, Nov 20, 2024 at 2:42 PM Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@...nel.org> wrote:

> I generally think that if you are sleeping relatively long, you may as
> well sacrifice some precision for avoiding system stress so to speak,
> so I've been considering something like flat 50 us for sleeps between
> 1 and 5 ms and then 1% of the sleep duration for longer sleeps.

What is the maximum rate of acpi_os_sleep() invocations?

Assuming the reasoning for user-space timer-slack is sound @ fixed 50 usec,
what logic supports acpi_os_sleep paying more timer slack delay than user space?

What measurements can demonstrate the benefit of this proposed additional delay?