linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] core kernel update

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]

Date:	Tue, 19 Nov 2013 20:14:34 +0100
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Josh Boyer <jwboyer@...il.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Josh Boyer <jwboyer@...oraproject.org>,
	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] core kernel update

On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 08:09:04PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> The actual value of the limit - here's the on-stack cpumask sizes of 
> the candidate range:
> 
> 	128 CPUs: 16 byte cpumasks
> 	256 CPUs: 32 byte cpumasks
> 	512 CPUs: 64 byte cpumasks

So 512 / 64bytes is a single cacheline and feels like a nice cut-off
before requiring an extra indirection and more cachelines.

64 bytes also doesn't sound _that_ big to have on-stack.

So I'd go for having the cut-off on >512, unless of course theres
evidence 64bytes is already too much.
--
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/