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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 09 Nov 2009 10:55:01 +0100 From: Mike Galbraith <efault@....de> To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> Cc: "Zhang, Yanmin" <yanmin_zhang@...ux.intel.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Gautham R Shenoy <ego@...ibm.com> Subject: Re: specjbb2005 and aim7 regression with 2.6.32-rc kernels On Mon, 2009-11-09 at 10:15 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Mon, 2009-11-09 at 08:09 +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote: > > + smp_read_barrier_depends(); > > cpumask_setall(cpus); > > + cpumask_and(cpus, cpus, cpu_online_mask); > > > how about: cpumask_copy(cpus, cpu_online_mask); ? Yeah, better. > Also, iirc cpu_online_mask is guaranteed stable when preemption is > disabled, otherwise you need to use get/put_online_cpus(), an > rmb_depends() won't do. Ok.. I do need a barrier though. I don't see how it can be stable when three other CPUs diddle it. It looks to me like it's stable only when all diddlers serialize on the runqueue lock. (which iff correct means 31 has bugs too, so I'm very likely dead wrong) /me has very little experience with smp memory woes. Tripping over one is one thing, fixing the bugger is an entirely different matter. (what I'm about to compile would probably get me spanked on lkml;) -Mike -- 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