| 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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2006 00:46:23 -0600 From: ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman) To: Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de> 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. Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de> writes: > 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. Sounds good to me. Eric - 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists