linux-kernel - Re: current_thread_info() vs task_thread

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: <20110718114834.GJ2400@redhat.com>
Date:	Mon, 18 Jul 2011 14:48:34 +0300
From:	Gleb Natapov <gleb@...hat.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: current_thread_info() vs task_thread_info(current)

On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 01:44:50PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-07-18 at 14:36 +0300, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> 
> > Why not use per cpu kernel_stack variable on all arches as x86_64 does?
> > How big the advantage of using stack pointer to find current thread info is?
> 
> One less load I imagine.
Oh, yes of course. But what I mean is that if using kernel_stack is good
enough for most popular architecture (x86_64) may be it is good enough for
other architectures too?

--
			Gleb.
--
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/