[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <487555A8.2050007@zytor.com>
Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2008 20:19:52 -0400
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
CC: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Mike Travis <travis@....com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...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
Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org> writes:
>
>>> Which means that my idea of using the technique we use on x86_32 will not
>> work.
>>
>> No, the compiler memory model we use guarantees that everything will be within
>> 2G of each other. The linker will spew loudly if that's not the case.
>
> The per cpu area is at least theoretically dynamically allocated. And we
> really want to put it in cpu local memory. Which means on any reasonable
> NUMA machine the per cpu areas should be all over the box.
>
> So there is no guarantee that with an arbitrary 64bit address in %gs of anything.
>
That doesn't matter in the slightest.
> Grr. Except you are correct. We have to guarantee that the offsets we have
> chosen at compile time still work. And we know all of the compile time offsets
> will be in the -2G range. So they are all 32bit numbers. Negative 32bit
> numbers to be sure. That trivially leaves us with everything working except
> the nasty hard coded decimal 40.
The *offsets* have to be in the proper range, but the %gs_base is an
arbitrary 64-bit number.
-hpa
--
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