[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20111207195753.GD665@escobedo.osrc.amd.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2011 20:57:53 +0100
From: Hans Rosenfeld <hans.rosenfeld@....com>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
CC: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, <tglx@...utronix.de>,
<mingo@...e.hu>, <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>, <eranian@...gle.com>,
<brgerst@...il.com>, <robert.richter@....com>,
<Andreas.Herrmann3@....com>, <x86@...nel.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/9] rework of extended state handling, LWP support
Hi,
On Fri, Dec 02, 2011 at 12:20:50PM +0100, Hans Rosenfeld wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 01, 2011 at 06:01:27PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> > On 12/01/2011 12:36 PM, Hans Rosenfeld wrote:
> > >
> > > So I assume, if you have 10000s of processes on a legacy 32bit system
> > > that never do any FPU stuff or SSE optimizations, you might indeed waste
> > > a couple of megabytes. I don't think thats very realistic, but that's
> > > just my opinion.
> > >
> >
> > A couple of megabytes of *lowmem*...
>
> Ok, I'll rework that part, so that preallocation only happens on systems
> that support non-lazy states. That means patch #7 is going away and
> patch #8 is getting slightly bigger. This may take a few days as I have
> to test that again.
The reworked LWP patches are ready and will follow shortly. I also added
a Kconfig option to completely disable support for non-lazy states,
allowing to completely avoid preallocation of the xstate area if
required.
Did you look at the other patches already?
Hans
--
%SYSTEM-F-ANARCHISM, The operating system has been overthrown
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists