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: <20081106151558.GB1644@elte.hu>
Date:	Thu, 6 Nov 2008 16:15:58 +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:

> On Thu, 6 Nov 2008, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> > 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.
> 
> I thought that was in your tree? I saw a conflict in -next with the 
> zero based stuff a couple of weeks ago. Mike is working on that 
> AFAICT.

No, what's in tip/core/percpu is not the PDA patches:

 f8d90d9: percpu: zero based percpu build error on s390
 cfcfdff: Merge branch 'linus' into core/percpu
 d379497: Zero based percpu: infrastructure to rebase the per cpu area to zero
 b3a0cb4: x86: extend percpu ops to 64 bit

But it's not actually utilized on x86. AFAICS you guys never came back 
with working patches for that (tip/x86/percpu is empty currently), and 
now i see something related on lkml on a separate track not Cc:-ed to 
the x86 folks so i thought i'd ask whether more coordination is 
desired here.

So ... what's the merge plan here? I like your fundamental idea, it's 
a nice improvement in a couple of areas and i'd like to help out make 
it happen. Also, the new per-cpu allocator would be nice for the 
sparseirq code.

	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/