linux-kernel - Re: Commit 34d76c41 causes linker errors on ia64 with NR

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: <alpine.LRH.2.00.0910261738020.25075@twin.jikos.cz>
Date:	Mon, 26 Oct 2009 17:38:07 +0100 (CET)
From:	Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc:	"Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
	Jeff Mahoney <jeffm@...e.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Yu, Fenghua" <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
	"linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org" <linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Commit 34d76c41 causes linker errors on ia64 with NR_CPUS=4096

On Fri, 23 Oct 2009, Jiri Kosina wrote:

> > > > Tony, is the change that will eventually have to be made to ia64 
> > > > pagefault handler too intrusive for -rc6, and should we rather go 
> > > > with my workaround instead, and try to find something proper for 
> > > > 2.6.33?
> > > 
> > > Using __alloc_percpu() rather than static declaration looks to be the 
> > > right fix here.  Not a "workaround".
> > 
> > It is a workaround for the IA64 build failure.
> > 
> > It's also an improvement of the scheduler code (we generally try to 
> > eliminate NR_CPUs scaling of allocations) - but code improvements need 
> > to happen much sooner than -rc6/-rc7.
> 
> Unfortunately refactoring the ia4 pagefault handler would require some 
> refactoring in order to eliminate the 64k limitation, as far as I know, 
> which doesn't seem to be feasible for this timeframe either.
> 
> So if I personally have to chose from these two options, I'd prefer my 
> patch for 2.6.32 and it'd be helpful if ia64 people could look into doing 
> something with the 64k limit for 2.6.33.
> 
> Acceptable for everyone? Ingo/Peter, will you merge this asap please, so 
> that we don't miss 2.6.32 with it?

This stil seems unfixed in the relevant trees I have checked ... anyone 
has strong objections to this, which cause the patch to be delayed?

Thanks,

-- 
Jiri Kosina
SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.

--
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/