linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] modules: Use a better scheme for refcounting

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:	Sat, 17 May 2008 15:33:46 +1000
From:	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
To:	Mike Travis <travis@....com>
Cc:	Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] modules: Use a better scheme for refcounting

On Friday 16 May 2008 23:41:16 Mike Travis wrote:
> Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > Rusty Russell a Ã©crit :
> >>    Any chance I can ask you look at the issue of full dynamic per-cpu
> >> allocation?
> >
> > You mean using alloc_percpu() ? Problem is that current implementation
> > is expensive,

I mean rewriting alloc_percpu :)

> > We probably can change this to dynamic per-cpu as soon as Mike or
> > Christopher finish their work on new dynamic per-cpu implementation ?
>
> Yes, the zero-based percpu variables followed by the cpu_alloc patch should
> provide this and shrink the code quite well, including in some cases
> removing locking requirements (because the resultant instructions will be
> atomic.)

Ah, I hadn't realized that Mike was already working on this.  Mike, have you 
published patches already?

Thanks,
Rusty.
--
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/