[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <48767F4F.1010209@zytor.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 17:29:51 -0400
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>
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
Christoph Lameter wrote:
> Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
>
>> Percpu on i386 hasn't been a point of discussion. It works fine, and
>> has been working fine for a long time. The same mechanism would work
>> fine on x86-64. Its only "issue" is that it doesn't support the broken
>> gcc abi for stack-protector.
>
> Well that is one thing and then the scaling issues, and the support of the new cpu allocator, new arch independent cpu operations etc.
>
>> The problem is all zero-based percpu on x86-64.
>
> The zero based stuff will enable a lot of things. Please have a look at the cpu_alloc patchsets.
>
No argument this work is worthwhile. The main issues on the table is
the particular choice of offsets, and the handling of the virtual space
-- I believe 2 MB mappings are too large, except perhaps as an option.
-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