From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Peter Zijlstra Subject: Re: suspend blockers & Android integration Date: Fri, 04 Jun 2010 12:08:23 +0200 Message-ID: <1275646103.27810.39526.camel@twins> References: <20100603193045.GA7188@elte.hu> <20100603231153.GA11302@elte.hu> <20100603232302.GA16184@elte.hu> <1275644619.27810.39462.camel@twins> <1275645245.27810.39493.camel@twins> <20100604100306.GB3324@elte.hu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20100604100306.GB3324@elte.hu> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Ingo Molnar Cc: tytso@mit.edu, Brian Swetland , Neil Brown , Arve Hj?nnev?g , Thomas Gleixner , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Alan Stern , Felipe Balbi , LKML , Florian Mickler , Linux OMAP Mailing List , Linux PM , Alan Cox , James Bottomley , Linus Torvalds , Kevin Hilman , "H. Peter Anvin" , Arjan van de Ven List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 2010-06-04 at 12:03 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > The only 'interesting' issue I can see here is that if you create 1000 > > CLOCK_MONOTONIC namepaces, we'd need to have a tree of trees in order to > > efficiently find the leftmost timer. > > Realistically Android userspace would create just a single such namespace for > all the untrusted/unknown/uncontrolled apps, right? Possibly, yeah. But it might not stop someone else from create an insane amount of them. So we do need to deal with that, and a linear loop over all timer bases, which then will be a user controlled quantity, just doesn't sound right :-)