linux-kernel - Re: [this_cpu_xx V4 00/20] Introduce per cpu atomic operations and avoid per cpu address arithmetic

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]

Date:	Fri, 2 Oct 2009 13:15:06 -0400 (EDT)
From:	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
cc:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, rusty@...tcorp.com.au,
	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [this_cpu_xx V4 00/20] Introduce per cpu atomic operations and
 avoid per cpu address arithmetic

On Fri, 2 Oct 2009, Ingo Molnar wrote:

> One final step/cleanup seems to be missing from it: it should replace
> current uses of percpu_op() [percpu_read(), etc.] in the x86 tree and
> elsewhere with the new this_cpu_*() primitives. this_cpu_*() is using
> per_cpu_from_op/per_cpu_to_op directly, we dont need those percpu_op()
> variants anymore.

Well after things settle with this_cpu_xx we can drop those.

> There should also be a kernel image size comparison done for that step,
> to make sure all the new primitives are optimized to the max on the
> instruction level.

Right. There will be a time period in which other arches will need to add
support for this_cpu_xx first.


--
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/