[lkml]   [2013]   [Sep]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH,RFC] random: make fast_mix() honor its name
On Sun, 22 September 2013 22:43:38 -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 22, 2013 at 08:16:23PM -0400, Jörn Engel wrote:
> > How about we switch between the two mixing functions depending on the
> > interrupt load? If this CPU has seen fewer than 1000 interrupts in
> > the last second, use the better one, otherwise us the cheaper one?
> I guess the question here is whether it's worth it. On a 2.8 GHz
> laptop Ivy Bridge chip the numbers are:

Then let us assume for now it is not worth it. When I finally get
around to generating profiles for my insane system we can revisit the

> I am very strongly of the opinion that the number of systems where you
> have an embedded system with that kind of inane interrupt rate is the
> 0.00000000001% case.

That would be one machine in 10^13? I doubt we have reached 10^13
machines running Linux in all of history, so a single example would
defeat your very strong opinion. ;)

Anyway, let me collect some real numbers before we argue any further.
And thank you for your maintainership. It may not appear that way,
but I have _very_ little to complain about in drivers/char/random.c.


One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty
are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled
with doubt and indecision.
-- Bertrand Russell
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2013-09-23 18:41    [W:0.059 / U:3.580 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site