[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2018 16:58:41 -0800
From: Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
To: Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, x86@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
David Woodhouse <dwmw@...zon.co.uk>,
Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
KarimAllah Ahmed <karahmed@...zon.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] x86/speculation: Don't inherit TIF_SSBD on execve()
> You can always force disable SSB. In that case, all the child processes
> will have SSBD on.
Okay that sounds reasonable, given the below. Thanks.
-Andi
>
> >
> > Do you have a real use case where this behavior is a problem?
> >
> > -Andi
>
> Yes, we have an enterprise application partner that found that their
> application slow down up to 10-20% depending on how their application
> was set up. With the slow setup, the application was spawned by Java
> processes causing the SSBD bit to stay on when the application was running.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists