[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1159227195.26986.68.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2006 09:33:14 +1000
From: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
Cc: Andi Kleen <ak@....de>,
lkml - Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
virtualization <virtualization@...ts.osdl.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/7] Use %gs for per-cpu sections in kernel
On Sun, 2006-09-24 at 23:25 -0700, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> Rusty Russell wrote:
> > I don't think so. There's *never* address subtraction, there's
> > sometimes 32 bit wrap (glibc uses this to effect subtraction, sure).
> > But there's no wrap here.
> >
> Hm, I guess, so long as you assume the kernel data segment is always
> below the kernel heap.
Agreed, we should BUG_ON() in case anyone ever changes this... I will
create a patch for this...
> > To test, I changed the following:
> >
> > --- smpboot.c.~8~ 2006-09-25 15:51:50.000000000 +1000
> > +++ smpboot.c 2006-09-25 16:00:36.000000000 +1000
> > @@ -926,8 +926,9 @@
> > unsigned long per_cpu_off)
> > {
> > unsigned limit, flags;
> > + extern char __per_cpu_end[];
> >
> > - limit = (1 << 20);
> > + limit = PAGE_ALIGN((long)__per_cpu_end) >> PAGE_SHIFT;
> >
> limit is a size, rather than the end address, so this isn't quite right.
I think it's OK. For every "%gs:var", var will be less than
__per_cpu_end.
Thanks!
Rusty.
--
Help! Save Australia from the worst of the DMCA: http://linux.org.au/law
-
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