linux-kernel - Re: [patch 5/7] x86_64: Support for cpu ops

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: <20081106071206.GH15731@elte.hu>
Date:	Thu, 6 Nov 2008 08:12:06 +0100
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, travis@....com,
	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
	Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 5/7] x86_64: Support for cpu ops


* Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:

> +#
> +# X86_64's spare segment register points to the PDA instead of the per
> +# cpu area. Therefore x86_64 is not able to generate atomic vs. interrupt
> +# per cpu instructions.
> +#
> +config HAVE_CPU_OPS
> +	def_bool y
> +	depends on X86_32
> +

hm, what happened to the rebase-PDA-to-percpu-area optimization 
patches you guys were working on? I remember there was some binutils 
flakiness - weird crashes and things like that. Did you ever manage to 
stabilize it? It would be sad if only 32-bit could take advantage of 
the optimized ops.

	Ingo
--
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/