linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] scheduler fixes

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: <1243228743.24376.30.camel@pasglop>
Date:	Mon, 25 May 2009 15:19:03 +1000
From:	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc:	Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>,
	Pekka J Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@...ox.com>,
	Alexander Viro <viro@....linux.org.uk>,
	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] scheduler fixes

On Mon, 2009-05-25 at 04:53 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> Would it be possible to restructure things to move kmalloc init to 
> before IRQ init as well? We have a couple of uglinesses there too.

Amen :-)

> Conceptually, memory should be the first thing set up in general, in 
> a kernel. It does not need IRQs, timers, the scheduler or any of the 
> IO facilities and abstractions. All of them need memory though - and 
> as Linux scales to more and more hardware via the same single image, 
> so will we get more and more dynamic concepts like cpumask_var_t and 
> sparse-irqs, which want to allocate very early.
> 
> setup_arch() is one huge function that sets up all architecture 
> details at once - but if we split a separate setup_arch_mem() out of 
> it, and left the rest in setup_arch (and moved it further down), we 
> could remove much of bootmem (especially the ugly uses).
> 
> This might even be doable realistically, and we could thus librarize 
> bootmem and eliminate it from x86 at least. Perhaps.

Yup, see my earlier email. Archs like x86 and powerpc already have a low
level allocator they can use to allocate the mem_map etc... so bootmem
really becomes redundant.

Cheers
Ben.


--
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/