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
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 14:04:24 +0200 From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> To: Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com> Cc: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>, Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>, Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>, Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>, Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>, Venkatesh Pallipadi <venki@...gle.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] cputime: Virtual cputime accounting small cleanups and consolidation On Thu, 2012-06-21 at 09:58 +0200, Martin Schwidefsky wrote: > On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 02:46:29 +0200 > Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com> wrote: > > > 2012/6/21 Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>: > > > On Tue, 2012-06-19 at 15:43 +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > > >> > > >> I wish we could do more vtime cputime accounting consolidation > > >> but archs do the things pretty differently although I bet the > > >> behaviour could be more unified. > > >> > > > Yes.. so s390,ia64 use thread_info, ppc uses their paca (arch private > > > precursor to per-cpu data). > > s390 uses the prefix page / lowcore to accumulate some accounting information. > Which basically is per-cpu data with the advantage that it is accessible with > at address 0-8191 for each cpu. The entry code does not have to load a pointer > to get to that page, I would prefer NOT to use per-cpu data here. Yeah, same for ppc and their paca, I just meant to put the data in per-cpu (your lowcore and ppc's paca qualify) storage instead of per-task. But seeing as I completely overlooked the per-task accounting this doesn't matter anyway. There being the per-task accounting also completely wrecks the proposal I outlined. That only works if its only per-cpu accounting. The alternative is going full 64bit ns and having the tick fallback do TICK_NSEC increments. 32bit args that don't do VIRT_TIME or IRQ_TIME won't like that though :/ So yeah, I did miss something obvious.. no cookies for me. -- 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