linux-kernel - Re: [patch 00/41] cpu alloc / cpu ops v3: Optimize per cpu access

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, 30 May 2008 10:50:04 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
To:	Mike Travis <travis@....com>
cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
Subject: Re: [patch 00/41] cpu alloc / cpu ops v3: Optimize per cpu access

On Fri, 30 May 2008, Mike Travis wrote:

> > No there is no limit. It just wastes lots of space (pointer arrays, 
> > alignment etc) that we could use to configure sufficiently large per cpu 
> > areas.
> 
> Is there any reason why the per_cpu area couldn't be made extensible?  Maybe
> a simple linked list of available areas?  (And use a config variable and/or
> boot param for initial size and increment size?)  [Ignoring the problem of
> reclaiming the space...]

cpu alloc v2 had an extendable per cpu space. You have the patches. We 
could put this on top of this patchset if necessary. But then it not so 
nice and simple anymore. Maybe we can rstrict the use of cpu alloc 
instead to users with objects < cache_line_size() or so?

--
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/