[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20131002203107.GY3081@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2013 22:31:07 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc: Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"mingo@...e.hu" <mingo@...e.hu>,
"ak@...ux.intel.com" <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] perf: mmap2 not covering VM_CLONE regions
On Wed, Oct 02, 2013 at 12:38:54PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 12:00 PM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 02, 2013 at 11:10:15AM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> >> Seems like a simple enough solution. Surely there must be a catch. :)
> >
> > I didn't want to add this to the core mm just for perf..
>
> It seems like it would be pretty inexpensive. It might also be
> valuable in other situations. Not that I can think of any at the
> moment. Additionally, it could likely be hidden by a CONFIG, so that
> if perf isn't built in, there's no change?
You optimist, you think you can build a kernel without perf? ;-)
Its just that I would hate to add more completely global state to the
fork() path. The tasklist_lock might be hard to crack, but at least the
pid-hash could use per bucket locks (it doesn't apparently).
I suppose people don't really care that much about fork() performance;
which is sad. KSM and THP also add their own global locks :-(
--
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