lists  /  announce  owl-users  owl-dev  john-users  john-dev  passwdqc-users  yescrypt  popa3d-users  /  oss-security  kernel-hardening  musl  sabotage  tlsify  passwords  /  crypt-dev  xvendor  /  Bugtraq  Full-Disclosure  linux-kernel  linux-netdev  linux-ext4  linux-hardening  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Fri, 22 Aug 2014 11:12:40 -0700
From:	Tim Chen <>
To:	Dave Hansen <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [v3] warn on performance-impacting configs aka.

On Fri, 2014-08-22 at 09:45 -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 08/22/2014 09:32 AM, Tim Chen wrote:
> >> > +#endif
> >> > +	"DEBUG_KMEMLEAK",
> >> > +#endif
> > I think coverage profiling also impact performance.
> > So I sould also put CONFIG_GCOV_KERNEL in the list.
> Would CONFIG_GCOV_PROFILE_ALL be the better one to check?  With plain
> GCOV_KERNEL, I don't think we will, by default, put the coverage
> information in any files and slow them down.

CONFIG_GCOV_PROFILE_ALL is definitely a no no regarding to
performance impact, which is mentioned in the gcov documentation.

I haven't tested this, but if profiling is turned on only for
a piece of code that is performance critical but not for
the whole kernel, in theory performance can still be impacted
with the overhead.  So I think it is safer to check
for CONFIG_GCOV_KERNEL, that has no reason to be turned on
for any workload that's performance critical.


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists