[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090308221208.GA24079@elte.hu>
Date: Sun, 8 Mar 2009 23:12:08 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Xen-devel <xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xen: core dom0 support
* H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com> wrote:
> Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > Since it's the same kernel image i think the only truly reliable
> > method would be to reboot between _different_ kernel images:
> > same instructions but randomly re-align variables both in terms
> > of absolute address and in terms of relative position to each
> > other. Plus randomize bootmem allocs and never-gets-freed-really
> > boot-time allocations.
> >
> > Really hard to do i think ...
> >
>
> Ouch, yeah.
>
> On the other hand, the numbers made sense to me, so I don't
> see why there is any reason to distrust them. They show a 5%
> overhead with pv_ops enabled, reduced to a 2% overhead with
> the changed. That is more or less what would match my
> intuition from seeing the code.
Yeah - it was Jeremy expressed doubt in the numbers, not me.
And we need to eliminate that 2% as well - 2% is still an awful
lot of native kernel overhead from a kernel feature that 95%+ of
users do not make any use of.
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists