[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <55559FDA.3010205@zytor.com>
Date: Fri, 15 May 2015 00:27:22 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
CC: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Gu Zheng <guz.fnst@...fujitsu.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] x86, espfix: use spin_lock rather than mutex
On 05/14/2015 11:54 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> The only slightly subtle detail with that is to use alloc_pages_node()
> with the secondary CPU's node, to make sure the espfix stack is
> NUMA-local to the CPU that is going to use it.
>
It doesn't hurt, although it isn't super critical as each page will be
shared among 64 CPUs. The whole espfix stack is only a single cacheline
long.
-hpa
--
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