linux-kernel - Re: [patch 0/7] [RFC] SLUB: Improve allocpercpu to reduce per cpu access overhead

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:	Thu, 01 Nov 2007 14:28:09 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	clameter@....com
Cc:	dada1@...mosbay.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca, penberg@...helsinki.fi
Subject: Re: [patch 0/7] [RFC] SLUB: Improve allocpercpu to reduce per cpu
 access overhead

From: Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2007 05:57:12 -0700 (PDT)

> That is basically what IA64 is doing but it not usable because you would 
> have addresses that mean different things on different cpus. List head
> for example require back pointers. If you put a listhead into such a per 
> cpu area then you may corrupt another cpus per cpu area.

Indeed, but as I pointed out in another mail it actually works if you
set some rules:

1) List insert and delete is only allowed on local CPU lists.

2) List traversal is allowed on remote CPU lists.

I bet we could get all of the per-cpu users to abide by this
rule if we wanted to.

The remaining issue with accessing per-cpu areas at multiple virtual
addresses is D-cache aliasing.
-
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/