linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] X86: Add a thread cpu time implementation to vDSO

lists.openwall.net		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 linux-cve-announce 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, 19 Dec 2014 18:27:28 +0100
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Cc:	Shaohua Li <shli@...com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>, Kernel-team@...com,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] X86: Add a thread cpu time implementation to vDSO

On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 09:07:49AM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> Re-asking my old question: would it make sense to add a vdso helper
> for the magic self-monitoring interface?  Or, at the very least, we
> could try to tidy up the docs a bit.

I find it really helps (performance wise) to strip down that magic to
the bare minimum required.

A VDSO helper would always have to do everything.  I suppose we could
provide a generic helper, one can always hand code the stuff anyhow.

Then again, what is the benefit of having it in the VDSO as opposed to a
regular DSO?

Updating the docs is always good.
--
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/