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:	Wed, 31 Oct 2007 22:27:51 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	clameter@....com
Cc:	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: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 18:21:02 -0700 (PDT)

> On Wed, 31 Oct 2007, David Miller wrote:
> 
> > From: Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
> > Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 18:12:11 -0700 (PDT)
> > 
> > > On Wed, 31 Oct 2007, David Miller wrote:
> > > 
> > > > All I can do now is bisect and then try to figure out what about the
> > > > guilty change might cause the problem.
> > > 
> > > Reverting the 7th patch should avoid using the sparc register that caches 
> > > the per cpu area offset? (I though so, does it?)
> > 
> > Yes, that's right, %g5 holds the local cpu's per-cpu offset.
> 
> And if I add the address of a percpu variable then I get to the variable 
> for this cpu right?

Right.

I bisected the crash down to:

	[PATCH] newallocpercpu
-
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/