linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86-32: Allocate irq stacks seperate from percpu area

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, 27 Oct 2010 16:39:16 +0200
From:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
CC:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>, x86@...nel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
	mingo@...e.hu
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86-32: Allocate irq stacks seperate from percpu area

On 10/27/2010 04:24 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> Le mercredi 27 octobre 2010 à 16:00 +0200, Tejun Heo a écrit :
> 
>> Heh, interesting table.  What does the same code say on 64bit?  Is it
>> the same?
>>
> 
> Yes this is the same

Weird, then why did the percpu code interleaved cpus 16-31 between
node 0 and 1?  Percpu layout code tries pretty hard to group cpus into
percpu units according to NUMA mapping but if the nodes are too
unbalanced that doing so would result in too big waste of address
space, it gives up.  I _think_ that's what happened with the weird
24:8 NUMA split on 32bit.  So, the interesting part is cpus 16-31 not
0-15.

-- 
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/