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]

Message-ID: <4CC83A85.3070608@kernel.org>
Date:	Wed, 27 Oct 2010 16:43:17 +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 04:39 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> Le mercredi 27 octobre 2010 à 16:24 +0200, Eric Dumazet a écrit :
>> 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
> 
> Oops sorry :!)
> 
> On 64bit kernel, the 16 'possible but not online' cpus are not on node
> 0, but balanced between two nodes.

Ah, okay, that explains it.  So, your NUMA table is screwed up.  It
would be interesting to dig down where the difference between 32 and
64bit comes from.  Maybe it's coming from differences in our init code
rather than from BIOS?

-- 
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/