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:	Fri, 02 Nov 2007 11:28:46 +0100
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:	clameter@....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

On Thu, 2007-11-01 at 15:58 -0700, David Miller wrote:

> Since you're the one who wants to change the semantics and guarentees
> of this interface, perhaps it might help if you did some greps around
> the tree to see how alloc_percpu() is actually used.  That's what
> I did when I started running into trouble with your patches.

This fancy new BDI stuff also lives off percpu_counter/alloc_percpu().

That means that for example each NFS mount also consumes a number of
words - not quite sure from the top of my head how many, might be in the
order of 24 bytes or something.

I once before started looking at this, because the current
alloc_percpu() can have some false sharing - not that I have machines
that are overly bothered by that. I like the idea of a strict percpu
region, however do be aware of the users.

-
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/