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: <491310E1.1080002@sgi.com>
Date:	Thu, 06 Nov 2008 07:44:33 -0800
From:	Mike Travis <travis@....com>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
CC:	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
	Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 5/7] x86_64: Support for cpu ops

Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * 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

Sorry, this was on my plate but the 4096 cpus if far more critical to get
released and available.  As soon as that's finally done, I can get back to
the pda/zero-based changes.

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/