linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] use per cpu data for single cpu ipi calls

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: <1233229316.4495.39.camel@laptop>
Date:	Thu, 29 Jan 2009 12:41:56 +0100
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, rusty@...tcorp.com.au,
	npiggin@...e.de, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
	arjan@...radead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] use per cpu data for single cpu ipi calls

On Thu, 2009-01-29 at 12:13 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> 
> > > Can generic_smp_call_function_single_interrupt() ever see 
> > > CSD_FLAG_ALLOC set now?  If not, that kfree can go away.
> > 
> > Like said above, removing that kmalloc will hurt people.
> 
> the whole promise of generic-IPI seems to dwindle and we'll get back to 
> roughly where we started out from.

I'd not go that far, the per-cpu csd is a nice fallback, but removing
that kmalloc is just silly.

And I see no reason why arch specific could do any better (aside from
sparc which has fancy ipis).

--
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/