linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] x86: implement multiple queues for smp function call IPIs

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]

Message-ID: <4892980A.2010101@goop.org>
Date:	Thu, 31 Jul 2008 21:58:50 -0700
From:	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
CC:	Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] x86: implement multiple queues for smp function	call
 IPIs

Ingo Molnar wrote:
> Yes on the 64-bit side we've had NUM_INVALIDATE_TLB_VECTORS (==8) for a 
> long time, but note that 64-bit is obviously for more modern CPUs. What 
> i'm mindful about (i'm not _that_ worried) are fragile APICs and unknown 
> erratas.
>   

Well, the whole exercise is only useful if you have a relatively large 
number of CPUs, which presumably means you have relatively modern 
APICs.  If we set the number of queues to 1 for < 4 CPUs, would that 
avoid the problem APICs?

    J
--
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/