linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC 0/6] Implement per-processor data areas for i386.

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sun, 27 Aug 2006 20:27:08 +0200
From:	Andreas Mohr <andi@...x01.fht-esslingen.de>
To:	Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>
Cc:	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Chuck Ebbert <76306.1226@...puserve.com>,
	Zachary Amsden <zach@...are.com>,
	Jan Beulich <jbeulich@...ell.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 0/6] Implement per-processor data areas for i386.

Hi,

On Sun, Aug 27, 2006 at 08:04:38PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> 
> > Something like that had to be done eventually about the inefficient
> > current_thread_info() mechanism, 
> 
> Inefficient? It's two fast instructions. I won't call that inefficient.

And that AGI stall?

> > I guess it's due to having tried that on an older installation with gcc 3.2,
> > which probably does less efficient opcode merging of current_thread_info()
> > requests compared to a current gcc version.
> 
> gcc normally doesn't merge inline assembly at all.

Depends on use of volatile, right?

OK, so probably there was no merging of separate requests,
but opcode intermingling could have played a role.

Andreas Mohr
-
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/