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]

Date:	Wed, 16 Dec 2009 10:46:38 +0900
From:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>
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

Hello,

On 12/16/2009 10:40 AM, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> 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 ?

Hmmm... you can store percpu pointer to a variable.  If there are the
same number of commit_count for each cpu, they can be allocated using
percpu allocator and their pointers can be stored, offset and
dereferenced.  Would that be enough?

Thanks.

-- 
tejun
--
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/