linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] x86: implement multiple queues for smp function call IPIs

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:	Fri, 1 Aug 2008 00:12:47 +0200
From:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc:	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>,
	Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] x86: implement multiple queues for smp function call IPIs

> Before going into all the fine details an trying our luck in tip/master 
> QA, i'm a bit worried about hw compatibility in general though. APICs 
> have been flaky since the beginnings of times. We had erratas in the 
> area of local timer IRQs(IPIs) overlapping with IPIs, etc. - so i'd not 
> bet the farm on all APICs being able to handle a _lot_ more overlapped 
> inter-CPU IPIs than we do currently. (which basically was just three of 
> them until now, and now four with the new SMP cross-call IPIs)

At least on 64bit systems this configuration has been already tested
for years with the 8 vector TLB flush. I am not aware
of any problems caused by it. Using them on them should be fine.

So your cautious approach would only be potentially useful on older 32bit only
systems.

-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/