linux-kernel - Re: #tj-percpu has been rebased

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: <49962812.8030902@kernel.org>
Date:	Sat, 14 Feb 2009 11:10:26 +0900
From:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
CC:	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, x86@...nel.org,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>, cpw@....com
Subject: Re: #tj-percpu has been rebased

Hello,

H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Okay, let's think about this a bit.
> 
> At least for x86, there are two cases:
> 
> - 32 bits.  The vmalloc area is *extremely* constrained, and has the
> same class of fragmentation issues as main memory.  In fact, it might
> have *more* just by virtue of being larger.

We can go for smaller chunks but I don't really see any perfect
solution here.  If a machine is doing 16 way SMP on 32bit, it's not
gonna scale very well anyway.

> - 64 bits.  At this point, we have with current memory sizes(*) an
> astronomically large virtual space.  Here we have no real problem
> allocating linearly in virtual space, either by giving each CPU some
> very large hunk of virtual address space (which means each percpu area
> is contiguous in virtual space) or by doing large contiguous allocations
> out of another range.
> 
> It doesn't seem to make sense to me at first glance to be any advantage
> to interlacing the CPUs.  Quite on the contrary, it seems to utterly
> preclude ever doing PMDs with a win, since (a) you'd be allocating real
> memory for CPUs which aren't actually there and (b) you'd have the wrong
> NUMA associativity.

For (a), we can do hotplug online/offline thing for dynamic areas if
necessary.  (b) why would it have the wrong NUMA associativity?

Thanks.

-- 
tejun
--
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/