linux-kernel - Re: [this_cpu_xx V7 0/8] Per cpu atomics in core allocators and cleanup

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: <20091216014031.GA12282@Krystal>
Date:	Tue, 15 Dec 2009 20:40:31 -0500
From:	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>
To:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc:	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>,
	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Subject: Re: [this_cpu_xx V7 0/8] Per cpu atomics in core allocators and
	cleanup

* Tejun Heo (tj@...nel.org) wrote:
> Hello, Mathieu.
> 
> On 12/16/2009 02:43 AM, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> > So I think accessing the "local_t offset" through percpu pointers should
> > be fine if I allocate struct ltt_chanbuf through the per cpu API.
> > However, I wonder how to deal with the commit_count counters, because
> > there is an indirection level.
> 
> Are they different in numbers for different cpus?

Nope, there is the same number of sub-buffers for each per-cpu buffer.
I just want to see if supplementary indirections are allowed after
dereferencing the per-cpu pointer ?

Thanks,

Mathieu

> 
> Thanks.
> 
> -- 
> tejun

-- 
Mathieu Desnoyers
OpenPGP key fingerprint: 8CD5 52C3 8E3C 4140 715F  BA06 3F25 A8FE 3BAE 9A68
--
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/