linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 00/25] mm: Preemptibility -v7

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1295989770.28776.1127.camel@laptop>
Date:	Tue, 25 Jan 2011 22:09:30 +0100
From:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To:	Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
	benh <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/25] mm: Preemptibility -v7

On Tue, 2011-01-25 at 12:47 -0800, Andi Kleen wrote:
> 
> I thought the reason for the preempt off inside the mmu gather region was
> to stay on the same CPU for local/remote flushes. How would it change that? 

afaik its been preempt-off solely because it was always inside a number
of spinlocks, I know both Hugh and BenH worked on making it preemptible
far before I started this.

I remember Hugh and Nick talking about this at OLS'06 or 07, can't
really remember.

As to local/remote flushes, there is no real saying where the pages came
from due to on-demand paging and the scheduler never having had a notion
of home-node. Therefore freeing them wouldn't be more of less local if
that is exposed to the same migration as allocation was.

--
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/