Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758423AbYGKAzp (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Jul 2008 20:55:45 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755492AbYGKAzi (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Jul 2008 20:55:38 -0400 Received: from relay1.sgi.com ([192.48.171.29]:59013 "EHLO relay.sgi.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755362AbYGKAzh (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Jul 2008 20:55:37 -0400 Message-ID: <4876AF87.8050105@sgi.com> Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 17:55:35 -0700 From: Mike Travis User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (X11/20070801) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "H. Peter Anvin" CC: Jeremy Fitzhardinge , Christoph Lameter , "Eric W. Biederman" , Ingo Molnar , Andrew Morton , Jack Steiner , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Arjan van de Ven Subject: Re: [RFC 00/15] x86_64: Optimize percpu accesses References: <20080709165129.292635000@polaris-admin.engr.sgi.com> <20080709200757.GD14009@elte.hu> <48751B57.8030605@goop.org> <48751CF9.4020901@linux-foundation.org> <4875209D.8010603@goop.org> <48752CCD.30507@linux-foundation.org> <48753C99.5050408@goop.org> <487555A8.2050007@zytor.com> <487556A5.5090907@goop.org> <4876194E.4080205@linux-foundation.org> <48761C06.3020003@zytor.com> <48762A3B.5050104@linux-foundation.org> <48762DD2.5090802@zytor.com> <487637A1.4080403@linux-foundation.org> <487639ED.7000502@zytor.com> <48763CA6.9030802@linux-foundation.org> <487647EF.5010609@goop.org> <48764A01.1070402@linux-foundation.org> <48764C7C.5010309@goop.org> <48767692.4080504@linux-foundation.org> <487677F0.4000404@goop.org> <4876791F.40603@zytor.com> In-Reply-To: <4876791F.40603@zytor.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1230 Lines: 33 H. Peter Anvin wrote: > Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote: >> >> Percpu on i386 hasn't been a point of discussion. It works fine, and >> has been working fine for a long time. The same mechanism would work >> fine on x86-64. Its only "issue" is that it doesn't support the >> broken gcc abi for stack-protector. >> >> The problem is all zero-based percpu on x86-64. >> > > Well, x86-64 has *two* issues: limited range of offsets (regardless of > if we do RIP-relative or not), and the stack-protector ABI. > > I'm still trying to reproduce Mike's setup, but I suspect it can be > switched to RIP-relative for the fixed-offset (static) stuff; for the > dynamic stuff it's all via pointers anyway so the offsets don't matter. > > -hpa I'm rebuilding my tip tree now, that should bring it up to date. I'll repost patches #1 to (currently) #4 shortly. I'm looking at some code that does not have patches I sent in like 4 to 5 months ago (acpi/NR_CPUS related changes). Thanks, Mike -- 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/