linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/8] cpumask: Replace cpumask_of_cpu with cpumask_of_cpu

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 23 Jul 2008 10:45:18 -0700
From:	Mike Travis <travis@....com>
To:	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
CC:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Jack Steiner <steiner@....com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Paul Jackson <pj@....com>,
	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
	Adrian Bunk <bunk@...nel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/8] cpumask: Replace cpumask_of_cpu with cpumask_of_cpu_ptr

Rusty Russell wrote:
...
>> Another thought I had is perhaps cpumask.h should define something that
>> indicates a "huge NR_CPUS count" that is used globally to trigger things
>> like kmalloc of cpumask variables, instead of declaring them on the
>> stack...?  Or (as has been discussed in the past), maybe a new cpumask_t
>> type will be needed?
> 
> AFAICT the final answer has to be a get_cpu_mask()/put_cpu_mask(), which 
> sleeps and doesn't nest (so we can use a pool allocator).  Of course, that 
> kind of analysis is non-trivial, so I suggest that's not for this merge 
> window...
> 
> Want me to try something and see if it boots?
> Rusty.

Hi Rusty,

There are a number of occasions where a function declares a temporary cpumask_t
variable on the stack to hold (say) current->cpus_allowed.  I tried a couple of
options early on to a.) reserve one or two cpumask_t variables in the task
struct; and b.) reserve one or two cpumask_t variables per cpu.  Both had weird
consequences in some usages and since 4096 is *only* 512 bytes, it didn't seem
worth the effort.  Our next iteration will have NR_CPUS=16384 and therefore
removing all stack declared cpumask_t variables is highly desirable.

Your idea of a pool allocator is very interesting... ;-)

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/