linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] hrtimers: Make hrtimer_update

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <7e0a6dea-beff-46d7-9fcc-71f141823092@kernel.dk>
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2025 12:56:05 -0700
From: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Nam Cao <namcao@...utronix.de>,
 Anna-Maria Behnsen <anna-maria@...utronix.de>,
 Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] hrtimers: Make hrtimer_update_function() less expensive

On 2/10/25 12:52 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 08 2025 at 08:18, Jens Axboe wrote:
> 
>> On 2/7/25 2:16 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>>> The sanity checks in hrtimer_update_function() are expensive for high
>>> frequency usage like in the io/uring code due to locking.
>>>
>>> Hide the sanity checks behind CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING, which has a decent
>>> chance to be enabled on a regular basis for testing.
>>
>> Looks good to me, thanks Thomas. On my side, I always have a debug run
>> done with PROVE_LOCKING and KASAN, fwiw.
> 
> I assume that with that your objections against the conversion of ioring
> to hrtimer_update_function() is gone too.

Certainly, with the expensive bits under PROVE_LOCKING, I have no
objections to the patch.

-- 
Jens Axboe