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]

Date:	Thu, 10 Jul 2008 10:26:51 -0500
From:	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
CC:	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>,
	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
	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

H. Peter Anvin wrote:

> Noone has talked about the actual placement of the percpu segment data.

But the placement of the percpu segment data is a problem because of the way we
currently have the linker calculate offsets. I have had kernel configurations where I changed the placement of the percpu segment leading to linker failures because the percpu segment was not in 2G range of the code segment!

This is a particular problem if we have a large number of processors (like 4096) that each require a sizable segment of virtual address space up there for the per cpu allocator.

> None of this affects the absolute positioning of the data.  The final
> address are determined by:
> 
>     fs_base + rip + offset
> or
>     fs_base + offset
> 
> ... respectively.  fs_base is an arbitrary 64-bit number; rip (in the
> kernel) is in the range [-2 GB + CONFIG_PHYSICAL_START, 0), and offset
> is in the range [-2 GB, 2 GB).

Well the zero based results in this becoming always

	gs_base + absolute address in per cpu segment

Why are RIP based references cheaper? The offset to the per cpu segment is certainly more than what can be fit into 16 bits.

--
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/