linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] consolidate WARN

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:	Mon, 27 Feb 2012 16:03:02 -0800
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	"Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@...e.com>
Cc:	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] consolidate WARN_...ONCE() static variables

On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 15:10:34 +0000
"Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@...e.com> wrote:

> Due to the alignment of following variables, these typically consume
> more than just the single byte that 'bool' requires, and as there are
> a few hundred instances, the cache pollution (not so much the waste of
> memory) sums up. Put these variables into their own section, outside
> of any half way frequently used memory range.
> 
> v2: Do the same also to the __warned variable of rcu_lockdep_assert().
> (Don't, however, include the ones used by printk_once() and alike, as
> they can potentially be hot.)

I have a bad feeling that I still don't understand this patch.  Ho hum.

What are the rules for the new .data.unlikely section?  When should
people put variables into this section?  Perhaps we can document this
somewhere?


--
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/