| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20090304005036.GD11782@elte.hu> Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2009 01:50:36 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com> Cc: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, tglx@...utronix.de, x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, jeremy@...p.org, cpw@....com, nickpiggin@...oo.com.au, ink@...assic.park.msu.ru Subject: Re: [PATCHSET x86/core/percpu] improve the first percpu chunk allocation * H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com> wrote: > Rusty Russell wrote: >> On Wednesday 25 February 2009 01:07:24 Tejun Heo wrote: >>> it always >>> saves a 2MB TLB entry for all the non-NUMA machines out there. >> >> Note that everyone keeps talking about "a" TLB entry; I wanted to make >> sure (esp. for those of us reading from the sidelines), it's not: it's >> up to num_possible_cpus() TLB entries. Of course, many paths won't access >> other CPU's data, but it'd be interesting (and pretty easy) to actually >> instrument how rare this is... >> > > Actually it's up to the number of actual CPUs in the system... > obviously there isn't any data allocated for non-present CPUs. well, we allocate percpu data for each possible CPU. In the overwhelming majority of cases that means all actual CPUs. 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists