linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86: Extend test_and_set_bit() test_and_clean_bit() to 64 bits in X86

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:	Thu, 14 May 2009 16:33:12 +0200
From:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	Sheng Yang <sheng@...ux.intel.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: Extend test_and_set_bit() test_and_clean_bit() to 64 bits in X86_64

On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 07:25:22AM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Andi Kleen wrote:
> > 
> > Pretty much all the bit ops and a few other operations currently have
> > 2/4GB limits on x86-64. I don't think that's going to change.
> > 
> > In the kernel nothing is ever that big continuously anyways.
> > 
> 
> Uhm, that *is* the problem at hand... specifically the bootmem map on
> multi-terabyte systems.

Well they have to fix a lot of more stuff then, when I did 
all the inline assembler >2GB objects were a explicit non goal. 
It also wouldn't surprise me if that wasn't true on other architectures too.

It would be better to just use open coded C for that case and avoid inline 
assembler.

-Andi
-- 
ak@...ux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only.
--
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/