From: Andi Kleen <ak@muc.de>
To: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: 2.5isms
Date: Sat, 01 Jan 2005 10:13:41 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <m1acrt7bqy.fsf@muc.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <41D60C35.9000503@yahoo.com.au> (Nick Piggin's message of "Sat, 01 Jan 2005 13:34:29 +1100")
Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au> writes:
> Justin Pryzby wrote:
>> Hi all, I have more 2.5isms for the list. ./fs/binfmt_elf.c:
>> #ifdef CONFIG_X86_HT
>> /*
>> * In some cases (e.g. Hyper-Threading), we want to avoid L1
>> * evictions by the processes running on the same package. One
>> * thing we can do is to shuffle the initial stack for them.
>> *
>> * The conditionals here are unneeded, but kept in to make the
>> * code behaviour the same as pre change unless we have
>> * hyperthreaded processors. This should be cleaned up
>> * before 2.6
>> */
>> if (smp_num_siblings > 1)
>> STACK_ALLOC(p, ((current->pid % 64) << 7));
>> #endif
>>
>
> Can we just kill it? Or do it unconditionally? Or maybe better yet, wrap
> it properly in arch code?
You can't kill it without ruining performance on older HT CPUs.
I would just keep it, it fixes the problem perhaps with a small amount of
code. A more generalized #ifdef may be a good idea (NEED_STACK_RANDOM)
may be a good idea, but it is not really a pressing need. Enabling
it unconditionally may be an option, although it will make it harder
to repeat test runs on non hyperthreaded CPUs.
-Andi
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2005-01-01 9:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-12-31 23:06 2.5isms Justin Pryzby
2005-01-01 2:34 ` 2.5isms Nick Piggin
2005-01-01 8:40 ` 2.5isms Arjan van de Ven
2005-01-01 9:13 ` Andi Kleen [this message]
2005-01-02 0:43 ` 2.5isms Nick Piggin
2005-01-02 8:58 ` 2.5isms Arjan van de Ven
2005-01-03 0:49 ` 2.5isms Nick Piggin
2005-01-02 12:04 ` 2.5isms Andi Kleen
2005-01-03 0:44 ` 2.5isms Nick Piggin
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2003-07-03 20:01 "Will be removed in 2.4" Justin Pryzby
2003-12-30 21:30 ` 2.5isms Justin Pryzby
2004-01-03 15:18 ` 2.5isms Pavel Machek
2004-01-07 7:28 ` 2.5isms Justin Pryzby
2004-03-29 15:40 ` 2.5isms Pavel Machek
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=m1acrt7bqy.fsf@muc.de \
--to=ak@muc.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox