On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 12:39 PM, John Stultz <john.stu...@linaro.org> wrote: > On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 12:32 PM, Andrew Morton > <a...@linux-foundation.org> wrote: >> On Fri, 5 Feb 2016 12:23:13 -0800 John Stultz <john.stu...@linaro.org> wrote: >>> On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 12:13 PM, Andrew Morton >>> <a...@linux-foundation.org> wrote: >>>> >>>> IOW, it would be more consistent to add sys_set_timer_slack()? >>> >>> I'm fine with moving this way. >>> >>> Ruchi/Rom: Any objections to that idea? >>> >>> Thomas/Arjan: Any other functionality we should consider including >>> when adding a syscall to tweak timer slack? >> >> A syscall is quite a bit more fuss - implement it on x86_64, provide a >> no-op default in sys_ni.c, add a test suite into >> tools/testing/selftests (mainly for arch maintainers), wait for the >> various arch maintainers to wire it up. > > Yea. It is. And I'm not excited to start over on this, but this > functionality has already run into trouble in the Android tree, as the > PR_SET_TIMERSLACK_PID value has hit multiple collisions over time. So > this functionality upstream would help resolve that pain. > >> Fortunately the build system now emits little messages which tell >> maintainers that there's a new syscall which needs looking at. >> >> And a manpage will be needed, but a prctl manpage patch would have been >> needed anyway. > > Yea.
Could this be exposed as a writable /proc entry instead? Like the oom_* stuff? -Kees -- Kees Cook Chrome OS & Brillo Security
