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  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:	Sat, 7 Apr 2007 18:25:06 -0700
From:	Andrew Morton <>
To:	Christoph Lameter <>
Cc:	Hugh Dickins <>, Nick Piggin <>,,
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] Optimize compound_head() by avoiding a shared page

On Sat, 7 Apr 2007 17:21:38 -0700 (PDT) Christoph Lameter <> wrote:

> On Sat, 7 Apr 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > Which is all a ton of fun, but this subversion of the architecture's
> > freedom to use volatile, memory barriers etc is a worry.  We do the same in
> > page_alloc.c, of course...  
> I just tried the approach that we discussed earlier and it was not 
> nice either.

We've discussed at least three approaches, so we don't know to what you refer.

>  Lets just use a page flag please.

Nope, try harder.

PageCompound is an unlikely case.  Back in the old days we would have done

	if (PageCompound(page))
		goto out_of_line;


	if (PageTail(page)) {
		page = page_tail(page);
		goto back;
	<do other stuff>

and nowadays we hope that gcc does the above for us.  If it doesn't do it
for us, perhaps it needs open-coded help.

Because I don't expect there will be much efficiency difference between the
above and the use of another page flag.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists