[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4876AF87.8050105@sgi.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 17:55:35 -0700
From: Mike Travis <travis@....com>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
CC: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
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:
> 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.
>>
>> The problem is all zero-based percpu on x86-64.
>>
>
> Well, x86-64 has *two* issues: limited range of offsets (regardless of
> if we do RIP-relative or not), and the stack-protector ABI.
>
> I'm still trying to reproduce Mike's setup, but I suspect it can be
> switched to RIP-relative for the fixed-offset (static) stuff; for the
> dynamic stuff it's all via pointers anyway so the offsets don't matter.
>
> -hpa
I'm rebuilding my tip tree now, that should bring it up to date. I'll
repost patches #1 to (currently) #4 shortly.
I'm looking at some code that does not have patches I sent in like 4 to 5
months ago (acpi/NR_CPUS related changes).
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists