Message-ID: <55551E07.8080509@zytor.com>
Date: Thu, 14 May 2015 15:13:27 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
CC: Gu Zheng <guz.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] x86, espfix: use spin_lock rather than mutex
References: <1431603465-12610-1-git-send-email-guz.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> <20150514122621.GB29235@pd.tnic> <20150514182954.GB23479@gmail.com> <20150514212753.GE29125@pd.tnic>
In-Reply-To: <20150514212753.GE29125@pd.tnic>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1048
Lines: 29

On 05/14/2015 02:27 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> Remove stable@ from CC.
> 
> On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 08:29:55PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>> We could allocate them on the boot CPU side and hand them over to the 
>> secondary CPU.
> 
> Yeah, something along those lines. I mean, they're allocated and in-use
> during the complete system lifetime, we might just as well allocate them
> all in one go. Btw, what's our allocator that early, memblock?
> 
> Still, what I find strange is why are we seeing this only now? Is it
> because it had to be a big box (cpu >= 128) or something else changed...?
> 

Quite probable.  You don't really want to allocate them until you know
if a CPU at least exists, though.

I like Ingo's suggestion of allocating them before CPU bringup on the
initiating CPU.

	-hpa


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/