linux-kernel - Re: [rfc 08/45] cpu alloc: x86 support

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: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0711191945260.21813@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com>
Date:	Mon, 19 Nov 2007 19:50:01 -0800 (PST)
From:	Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
To:	Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>
cc:	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, travis@....com,
	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [rfc 08/45] cpu alloc: x86 support

On Tue, 20 Nov 2007, Andi Kleen wrote:

> I might be pointing out the obvious, but on x86-64 there is definitely not 
> 256TB of VM available for this.

Well maybe in the future.

One of the issues that I ran into is that I had to place the cpu area
in between to make the offsets link right.

However, it would be best if the cpuarea came *after* the modules area. We 
only need linking that covers the per cpu area of processor 0.

So I think we have a 2GB area right?

1GB kernel
1GB - 1x per cpu area (128M?) modules?
cpu aree 0
---- 2GB limit
cpu area 1 
cpu area 2
....

For that we would need to move the kernel down a bit. Can we do that?

-
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/