[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090530221024.GA23204@elte.hu>
Date: Sun, 31 May 2009 00:10:24 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
Cc: "Larry H." <research@...reption.com>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
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
* Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com> wrote:
> Ingo Molnar wrote:
>> * Larry H. <research@...reption.com> wrote:
>>> On 20:21 Sat 30 May , Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
>>>> Freeing keys is an utter slow-path (if not then the clearing is
>>>> the least of our performance worries), so any clearing cost is in
>>>> the noise. Furthermore, kzfree() is an existing facility already in
>>>> use. If it's reused by your patches that brings further advantages:
>>>> kzfree(), if it has any bugs, will be fixed. While if you add a
>>>> parallel facility kzfree() stays broken.
>>> 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?
My (and AFAICT Pekka's) suggestion was to use unconditional kzfree()
in the few places where it matters: crypto/WEP key and input stream
freeing.
His counter-argument was that it is unacceptable overhead - without
any supporting data. I dont think the overhead is a problem in those
cases (without any supporting data either).
Obviously the argument is best settled by measurements. Done by
whoever wants to push this code.
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