[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080709133958.612635f0@infradead.org>
Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2008 13:39:58 -0700
From: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
"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
Subject: Re: [RFC 00/15] x86_64: Optimize percpu accesses
On Wed, 09 Jul 2008 13:11:03 -0700
Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org> wrote:
> 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.
what's wrong with zero based btw?
do they stop us from using gcc's __thread keyword for per cpu variables
or something? (*that* would be a nice feature)
or does it stop us from putting the per cpu variables starting from
offset 4096 onwards?
--
If you want to reach me at my work email, use arjan@...ux.intel.com
For development, discussion and tips for power savings,
visit http://www.lesswatts.org
--
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