On Donnerstag, 13. März 2014 14:00:10 Andi Kleen wrote:
> At some point the majority of my nfsroot test image were OpenSUSE 9.
Hehe, I had a 9.3 system (2.6.11.4) with an uptime of > 1000 days before power
outage, and one 11.1 (2.6.27.56), that has an uptime of 1029 days now. While
git brought
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 2:10 PM, Andi Kleen wrote:
>
> Doesn't cripple it in any way.
>
> Forcing it to int 0x80 does however.
No it doesn't.
It runs fine. No crippling.
If you are silly enough to run a eight-year-old distribution, and then
upgrade just the kernel, you'll run a bit slower. So w
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 02:04:56PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 03/13/2014 02:00 PM, Andi Kleen wrote:
> >
> > At some point the majority of my nfsroot test image were OpenSUSE 9.
> > It was the last opensuse system that booted fast without udev or initrd :-)
> >
> > I have mostly retired th
On 03/13/2014 02:00 PM, Andi Kleen wrote:
>
> At some point the majority of my nfsroot test image were OpenSUSE 9.
> It was the last opensuse system that booted fast without udev or initrd :-)
>
> I have mostly retired them by now, but still occasional usage.
>
> So that why i would prefer to no
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 12:58:35PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 03/13/2014 12:37 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > There are big advantages to "minimal code" at fixed addresses. The
> > vdso=native thing fills the page with 0xcc just to not give useful
> > instructions (still on my phone, so that
On 03/13/2014 12:37 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> There are big advantages to "minimal code" at fixed addresses. The
> vdso=native thing fills the page with 0xcc just to not give useful
> instructions (still on my phone, so that may be a bogus memory)
>
> That said, I doubt we care just for OpenSUSE
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 12:21 PM, Linus Torvalds
wrote:
>
> On Mar 13, 2014 12:13 PM, "Andy Lutomirski" wrote:
>>
>> How? We either set null in AT_SYSINFO_EHDR, we set something simple
>> that SuSE is okay with (and compile separate images?) or we set
>> something fancy and not relocated, and Su
If we have to stick anything in the fixmap it might add well be the real vdso...
On March 13, 2014 12:21:54 PM PDT, Linus Torvalds
wrote:
>On Mar 13, 2014 12:13 PM, "Andy Lutomirski"
>wrote:
>>
>> How? We either set null in AT_SYSINFO_EHDR, we set something simple
>> that SuSE is okay with (an
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 12:06 PM, Linus Torvalds
wrote:
> On my phone, so the lists will reject this, and sorry for top posting.
>
> Maybe we could do something similar to the vsyscall=native thing, where the
> compat vdso just does the system calls, but at least uses syscall rather
> than int80 w
On 03/13/2014 11:32 AM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>
> I don't recall anyone suggesting keeping the name. CONFIG_COMPAT_VDSO
> will henceforth be a silly name, since the "compat" mode won't have a
> vdso.
>
Linus suggested it:
> What might be acceptable then is to just keep the old config name, and
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 11:21 AM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 03/13/2014 11:08 AM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> On 03/13/2014 10:28 AM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>>
>>> Does this mean you prefer the relocation approach to the compat vdso
>>> removal approach? It seems like Linus is okay with either one.
On 03/13/2014 11:08 AM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 03/13/2014 10:28 AM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>
>> Does this mean you prefer the relocation approach to the compat vdso
>> removal approach? It seems like Linus is okay with either one.
>>
>
> Actually, thinking about it, removing it is probably b
On 03/13/2014 10:28 AM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>
> Does this mean you prefer the relocation approach to the compat vdso
> removal approach? It seems like Linus is okay with either one.
>
Actually, thinking about it, removing it is probably better:
a) gets rid of legacy code, making room for un
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 8:53 AM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 03/12/2014 03:59 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>
>> Note that this code is completely unnecessary if either of my patch
>> sets is accepted. Since you're the maintainer, can you give an
>> opinion? :)
>>
>
> I'm trying to unwind all the pa
On 03/12/2014 03:59 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>
> Note that this code is completely unnecessary if either of my patch
> sets is accepted. Since you're the maintainer, can you give an
> opinion? :)
>
I'm trying to unwind all the patches going around, Linus' feedback and
so on, and figure out wh
On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 3:58 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 03/12/2014 03:51 PM, Stefani Seibold wrote:
>> This patch enables 32 bit vDSO which are larger than a page. Currently
>> two pages are reserved, this should be enough for future improvements.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Stefani Seibold
>> ---
>
On 03/12/2014 03:51 PM, Stefani Seibold wrote:
> This patch enables 32 bit vDSO which are larger than a page. Currently
> two pages are reserved, this should be enough for future improvements.
>
> Signed-off-by: Stefani Seibold
> ---
> arch/x86/include/asm/fixmap.h | 4 +++-
> arch/x86/vdso/vds
This patch enables 32 bit vDSO which are larger than a page. Currently
two pages are reserved, this should be enough for future improvements.
Signed-off-by: Stefani Seibold
---
arch/x86/include/asm/fixmap.h | 4 +++-
arch/x86/vdso/vdso32-setup.c | 29 +++--
2 files chan
18 matches
Mail list logo
