linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 00/15] x86_64: Optimize percpu accesses

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: <487527B1.4070305@sgi.com>
Date:	Wed, 09 Jul 2008 14:03:45 -0700
From:	Mike Travis <travis@....com>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
CC:	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.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

Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Mike Travis <travis@....com> wrote:
> 
>>> This fragility makes me very nervous.  It seems hard enough to get 
>>> this stuff working with current tools; making it work over the whole 
>>> range of supported tools looks like its going to be hard.
>> (me too ;-)
>>
>> Once I get a solid version working with (at least) gcc-4.2.4, then 
>> regression testing with older tools will be easier, or at least a 
>> table of results can be produced.
> 
> the problem is, we cannot just put it even into tip/master if there's no 
> short-term hope of fixing a problem it triggers. gcc-4.2.3 is solid for 
> me otherwise, for series of thousands of randomly built kernels.

Great, I'll request we load gcc-4.2.3 on our devel server.

> 
> can we just leave out the zero-based percpu stuff safely and could i 
> test the rest of your series - or are there dependencies? I think 
> zero-based percpu, while nice in theory, is probably just a very small 
> positive effect so it's not a life or death issue. (or is there any 
> deeper, semantic reason why we'd want it?)

I sort of assumed that zero-based would not make it into 2.6.26-rcX,
and no, reaching 4096 cpus does not require it.  The other patches
I've been submitting are more general and will fix possible panics
(like stack overflows, etc.)

Thanks,
Mike
--
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/