linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -v2 3/6] x86, 64bit, numa: Put pgtable to local node memory

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, 30 Dec 2010 10:06:48 +0100
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc:	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
	Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH -v2 3/6] x86, 64bit, numa: Put pgtable to local node
 memory


* H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com> wrote:

> On 12/29/2010 05:07 PM, David Rientjes wrote:
> > On Wed, 29 Dec 2010, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> > 
> >>> That's from f51bf3073a1 (x86, numa: Fake apicid and pxm mappings for NUMA 
> >>> emulation) and c1c3443c9c (x86, numa: Fake node-to-cpumask for NUMA 
> >>> emulation) in x86/numa.  Given the subject line, I think your patchset is 
> >>> targeted to the same branch so I'm not sure what's concerning?
> >>
> >> No, it's part of a much bigger patchset which doesn't have anything to
> >> do with NUMA.  That's the problem.
> >>
> >> In other words, I need a sane way to merge them and resolve the conflict.
> >
> > The two patches above from x86/numa that create the conflict should be 
> > dependent only on 4e76f4e67a (x86, numa: Avoid compiling NUMA emulation 
> > functions without CONFIG_NUMA_EMU), so cherry-pick them into x86/bootmem?
> 
> That would hurt more, I think.

x86/bootmem could be based on x86/numa - the latter is stable so it's not like we'll 
have to undo it from under x86/bootmem. We can then send it to Linus once x86/numa 
is upstream.

Btw., i suspect we want to use x86/memblock instead of x86/bootmem?

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
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/