[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170608200931.GC2464@linux-80c1.suse>
Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 13:09:31 -0700
From: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>
To: "Reshetova, Elena" <elena.reshetova@...el.com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
Eric Biggers <ebiggers3@...il.com>,
Hans Liljestrand <ishkamiel@...il.com>,
David Windsor <dwindsor@...il.com>,
Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
"Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>,
"arozansk@...hat.com" <arozansk@...hat.com>,
Manfred Spraul <manfred@...orfullife.com>,
"axboe@...nel.dk" <axboe@...nel.dk>,
James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] refcount: Create unchecked atomic_t implementation
On Thu, 08 Jun 2017, Reshetova, Elena wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 07:58:31PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
>> > Many subsystems will not use refcount_t unless there is a way to build the
>> > kernel so that there is no regression in speed compared to atomic_t. This
>> > adds CONFIG_REFCOUNT_FULL to enable the full refcount_t implementation
>> > which has the validation but is slightly slower. When not enabled,
>> > refcount_t uses the basic unchecked atomic_t routines, which results in
>> > no code changes compared to just using atomic_t directly.
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
>> > ---
>> > This is v2 of this patch, which I've split from the arch-specific
>> > alternative implementation for x86. Getting this patch in will unblock
>> > atomic_t -> refcount_t conversion, and the x86 alternative implementation
>> > can be developed in parallel. Changes from v1: use better atomic ops,
>> > thanks to Elena and Peter.
>>
>> Yeah, can we get this in ASAP? Without having to always incur the over
>> this will allow us to convert subsystems to refcount_t broadly.
>
>+1. If this gets in, I can refresh the rest of the patches in net, mm, ipc, block, etc. and send them for review again.
Yes, this would be a prerequisite for ipc; which I initially thought didn't
take a performance hit.
Thanks,
Davidlohr
Powered by blists - more mailing lists