linux-kernel - Re: x86: Convert cpu_core_map to be a per cpu variable

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:	Fri, 13 Jul 2007 09:34:02 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
cc:	ak@...e.de, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, travis@....com,
	jeremy@...p.org
Subject: Re: x86: Convert cpu_core_map to be a per cpu variable

On Fri, 13 Jul 2007, David Miller wrote:

> From: Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
> Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 23:58:06 -0700 (PDT)
> 
> > cpu_core_map is currently an array defined using NR_CPUS. This means that
> > we overallocate since we will rarely really use the maximum 
> > number of configured cpus. This may become a problem when we need to 
> > increase the NR_CPUs on x86_64 for our new product line.
> 
> I'm using NR_CPUS set to 1024 on my sparc64 workstation, it's
> not that bad to be honest :-)  What kind of cpu arity are you
> talking about?

Up to 16k.

> > If we put the cpu_core_map into the per cpu area then it will be allocated
> > for each processor as it comes online.
> > 
> > However, this means that the core map cannot be accessed until the per cpu 
> > area has been allocated. Xen does a weird thing here looping over all 
> > processors and zeroing the masks that are not yet allocated and that will 
> > be zeroed when they are allocated. I commented the code out. Maybe there 
> > is another purpose? Jeremy?
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
> 
> Please take care of sparc64 if you're going to do this change.
> It uses cpu_core_map too.

But the code modified here is x86_64 and i386 specific? Is there an 
overlap?

-
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/