linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 01/22] x86: add methods for writing of an MSR on several CPUs

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: <4A16D735.8090104@zytor.com>
Date:	Fri, 22 May 2009 09:47:49 -0700
From:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To:	Borislav Petkov <borislav.petkov@....com>
CC:	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, greg@...ah.com, mingo@...e.hu,
	norsk5@...oo.com, tglx@...utronix.de, mchehab@...hat.com,
	aris@...hat.com, edt@....ca, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Andreas Herrmann <andreas.herrmann3@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/22] x86: add methods for writing of an MSR on	several
 CPUs

Borislav Petkov wrote:
>>>
>> If nothing else it might matter for boot time.  Serializing *anything*
>> across a large number of CPUs can be very expensive.
> 
> well, upon a closer look, smp_call_function_many() skips over the CPU
> it is executing on and there's currently work in that area to extend
> that API: http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=123979231511594&w=2.
> 
> However, according to Linus' comments, it looks like this would need a
> bit of work so I guess we should wait with the concurrency stuff a bit,
> no?
> 

Well, we can introduce the API now if that's where we intend it to go.

	-hpa

-- 
H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center
I work for Intel.  I don't speak on their behalf.

--
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/