linux-kernel - Re: [2/6] add config option to vmalloc stacks (was: Re: [-mm patch] i386: enable 4k stacks by default)

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]

Message-ID: <20070501232301.GW26598@holomorphy.com>
Date:	Tue, 1 May 2007 16:23:01 -0700
From:	Bill Irwin <bill.irwin@...cle.com>
To:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc:	Bill Irwin <bill.irwin@...cle.com>, Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, David Chinner <dgc@....com>,
	Zan Lynx <zlynx@....org>, Adrian Bunk <bunk@...sta.de>,
	Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, wli@...omorphy.com
Subject: Re: [2/6] add config option to vmalloc stacks (was: Re: [-mm patch] i386: enable 4k stacks by default)

At some point in the past, I wrote:
>> These IRQ stacks are per-cpu, not per-IRQ. It may make sense to
>> implement per-IRQ stacks, in which case dynamic allocation at the time
>> of request_irq() will make sense.

On Wed, May 02, 2007 at 12:07:45AM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> This depends if active IRQ count exceeds active CPU count worst cases.
> For the big boxes it might well do but for small ones we seem to be best
> with per CPU.

I'll leave IRQ stacks per-CPU, then. The prevailing opinion on large
i386 does not favor doing much of anything to accommodate it.


-- wli
-
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/