linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC/RFB] x86_64, i386: interrupt dispatch changes

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: <20081104165409.GA511@elte.hu>
Date:	Tue, 4 Nov 2008 17:54:09 +0100
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Alexander van Heukelum <heukelum@...tmail.fm>
Cc:	Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>,
	Alexander van Heukelum <heukelum@...lshack.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, lguest@...abs.org,
	jeremy@...source.com, Steven Rostedt <srostedt@...hat.com>,
	Mike Travis <travis@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC/RFB] x86_64, i386: interrupt dispatch changes


* Alexander van Heukelum <heukelum@...tmail.fm> wrote:

> > My estimation is that if we do it right, your approach will behave 
> > better on modern CPUs (which is what matters most for such 
> > things), especially on real workloads where there's a considerable 
> > instruction-cache pressure. But it should be measured in any case.
> 
> Fully agreed. I will do some measurements in the near future, maybe 
> next week. At least noone came up with an absolutely blocking 
> problem with this approach ;).

how about "it does not build with lguest enabled" as a blocking 
problem? ;-)

  arch/x86/lguest/built-in.o: In function `lguest_init_IRQ':
  boot.c:(.init.text+0x33f): undefined reference to `interrupt'

config attached.

	Ingo

View attachment "config" of type "text/plain" (61330 bytes)