[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <48751B57.8030605@goop.org>
Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2008 13:11:03 -0700
From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
CC: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Mike Travis <travis@....com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>,
Jack Steiner <steiner@....com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC 00/15] x86_64: Optimize percpu accesses
Ingo Molnar wrote:
> Note that the zero-based percpu problems are completely unrelated to
> stackprotector. I was able to hit them with a stackprotector-disabled
> gcc-4.2.3 environment.
The only reason we need to keep a zero-based pda is to support
stack-protector. If we drop drop it, we can drop the pda - and its
special zero-based properties - entirely.
J
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists