[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <84144f020905301353y2f8c232na4c5f9dfb740eec4@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 30 May 2009 23:53:47 +0300
From: Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>
To: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, "Larry H." <research@...reption.com>,
Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...l.org>,
linux-mm@...ck.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
pageexec@...email.hu,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [patch 0/5] Support for sanitization flag in low-level page
allocator
Hi Rik,
On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 11:39 PM, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com> wrote:
>>> Have you benchmarked the addition of these changes? I would like to see
>>> benchmarks done for these (crypto api included), since you are proposing
>>> them.
>>
>> You have it the wrong way around. _You_ have the burden of proof here
>> really, you are trying to get patches into the upstream kernel. I'm not
>> obliged to do your homework for you. I might be wrong, and you can prove me
>> wrong.
>
> Larry's patches do not do what you propose they
> should do, so why would he have to benchmark your
> idea?
It's pretty damn obvious that Larry's patches have a much bigger
performance impact than using kzfree() for selected parts of the
kernel. So yes, I do expect him to benchmark and demonstrate that
kzfree() has _performance problems_ before we can look into merging
his patches.
Pekka
--
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