| 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, 25 Jan 2011 12:47:07 -0800 From: Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com> To: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/25] mm: Preemptibility -v7 > Its nesting hundreds of spinlocks (255+) make the preempt debug code > unhappy, it also causes fun latencies when you do start KVM/GRU > Although arguably that's the least convincing reason to do all this its > the one that got me to actually compose this series -- I really should > write a new leader.. Least Convincing is a good description... Tuning operations which only happen once is not very interesting, especially if that affects fast paths. > Making all this preemptible also allows making the whole mmu_gather > thing preemptible, which is something we've wanted to do for a long > while, it also allows XPMEM or whatever that thing was called (Andrea > knows) and of course, it moves a part of -rt upstream. I thought the reason for the preempt off inside the mmu gather region was to stay on the same CPU for local/remote flushes. How would it change that? > If we decide to keep patch 24, it also simplifies the truncate path > quite a bit. That sounds like a good thing. Making truncate simpler is always good. -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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists