linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] add support for CommonLPIAff field

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]

Message-ID: <5AA66ED7.7080007@huawei.com>
Date:   Mon, 12 Mar 2018 20:13:11 +0800
From:   Yang Yingliang <yangyingliang@...wei.com>
To:     Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>
CC:     <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] add support for CommonLPIAff field



On 2018/3/12 17:55, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On 12/03/18 06:49, Yang Yingliang wrote:
>> This patch set adjust struct rdists to support CommonLPIAff field.
>> This field is described in spec:
>>
>> CommonLPIAff, bits [25:24]
>> The affinity level at which Redistributors share a LPI Configuration table.
>> 00 All Redistributors must share a LPI Configuration table.
>> 01 All Redistributors with the same Aff3 value must share an LPI Configurationt table.
>> 10 All Redistributors with the same Aff3.Aff2 value must share an LPI Configuration table.
>> 11 All Redistributors with the same Aff3.Aff2.Aff1 value must share an LPI Configuration
>> table.
>
> What are you trying to achieve here? We already share the same
> configuration table across all the redistributors, irrelevant the of
> CommonLPIAff. Why would we need to do anything else?

In some cases, such as "with the same Aff3.Aff2 value must share an LPI
Configuration table", redistributors will access local memory node
only, it may improve the performance. And I don't have any beneficial
data now. I may provide it later.

Regards,
Yang
>
> Thanks,
>
> 	M.
>