linux-kernel - Re: [PATCHSET x86/core/percpu] implement dynamic percpu allocator

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: <499FAE55.8070801@kernel.org>
Date:	Sat, 21 Feb 2009 16:33:41 +0900
From:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
CC:	rusty@...tcorp.com.au, tglx@...utronix.de, x86@...nel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, hpa@...or.com, jeremy@...p.org,
	cpw@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCHSET x86/core/percpu] implement dynamic percpu allocator

Tejun Heo wrote:
> I can remove the TLB problem from non-NUMA case but for NUMA I still
> don't have a good idea.  Maybe we need to accept the overhead for
> NUMA?  I don't know.

Hmmmm... one thing we can do on NUMA is to remap and free the remapped
address and make __pa() and __va() handle that area specially.  It's a
bit convoluted but the added overhead should be minimal.  It'll only
be simple range check in __pa()/__va() and it's not like they are
super hot paths anyway.  I'll give it a shot.

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/