linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86_64: Auto size the per cpu area.

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

Date:	Tue, 8 Aug 2006 08:01:29 +0200
From:	Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>
To:	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>,
	"Randy.Dunlap" <rdunlap@...otime.net>,
	"Protasevich, Natalie" <Natalie.Protasevich@...sys.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86_64:  Auto size the per cpu area.

On Tuesday 08 August 2006 07:47, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> 
> Now for a completely different but trivial approach.
> I just boot tested it with 255 CPUS and everything worked.
> 
> Currently everything (except module data) we place in
> the per cpu area we know about at compile time.  So
> instead of allocating a fixed size for the per_cpu area
> allocate the number of bytes we need plus a fixed constant
> for to be used for modules.
> 
> It isn't perfect but it is much less of a pain to
> work with than what we are doing now.

Yes makes sense.

However not that particular patch - i already changed that
code in my tree because I needed really early per cpu for something and
i had switched to using a static array for cpu0's cpudata.

I will modify it to work like your proposal.

-Andi
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/