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  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:	Thu, 17 Jul 2014 10:26:24 -0500 (CDT)
From:	Christoph Lameter <>
To:	Pranith Kumar <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] doc: Add remote CPU access details and others to

On Thu, 17 Jul 2014, Pranith Kumar wrote:

> I can mention that IPI is preferable. What is that you don't want mentioned? atomic_t?

Definitely not as an example. atomic_t in per cpu areas is self
contradicting. The per cpu area is exclusively for that processor whereas
an atomic_t is supposed to be accessed from multiple processors.

> > Remote percpu updates are extremely rare events. If the cpu is idle/asleep
> > then usually no updates are needed because no activity is occurring on
> > that cpu.
> >
> Yes, -usually- that is the case. But we are talking about the extreme rare event
> where we need to update some remote CPU`s per-cpu data without waking it up from
> sleep/idle. How do you suggest we handle this? I don't think suggesting not to
> use per-cpu areas because of this is a good idea, since we lose a lot of
> performance in the most common cases.

If you modify a percpu area then that is usually done because that cpu
needs to take some action. An IPI is fine.

Otherwise yes I would suggest not use a percpu area but a separate data
structure for synchronization.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists