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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2015 08:14:16 -0800 From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> To: Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au> Cc: Pranith Kumar <bobby.prani@...il.com>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>, Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>, Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>, Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>, "supporter:S390" <linux390@...ibm.com>, Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>, Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>, Scott Wood <scottwood@...escale.com>, Anton Blanchard <anton@...ba.org>, Daniel Walter <dwalter@...gle.com>, Tiejun Chen <tiejun.chen@...driver.com>, Nishanth Aravamudan <nacc@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, "Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>, Li Zhong <zhong@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>, Jens Freimann <jfrei@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, "open list:LINUX FOR POWERPC..." <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>, open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "open list:S390" <linux-s390@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] srcu: Isolate srcu sections using CONFIG_SRCU On Sun, Jan 04, 2015 at 08:35:52PM +1100, Michael Ellerman wrote: > On Tue, 2014-12-30 at 13:54 -0500, Pranith Kumar wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 1:50 PM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote: > > > On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 12:46:22AM -0500, Pranith Kumar wrote: > > >> Isolate the SRCU functions and data structures within CONFIG_SRCU so that there > > >> is a compile time failure if srcu is used when not enabled. This was decided to > > >> be better than waiting until link time for a failure to occur. > > > > > > Why? > > > > This is part of the kernel tinification efforts. The first patch was > > posted here: https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/12/4/848. This patch enables a > > compile time failure instead of a link time failure. > > The punch line was: > > "so the savings are about ~2000 bytes." > > Which is utterly not worth the effort IMO. There have got to be more attractive > targets for tinification than this. There probably are. But if the tinification effort is to come anywhere near reaching its goals, it is going to need 2000-byte savings, especially on the small systems that are this effort's main target. That said, Peter's suggestion of falling back to the link-time diagnostic does simplify things a bit, and might be a good approach. Thanx, Paul -- 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