[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190404102902.GW4038@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2019 12:29:02 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>
Cc: tglx@...utronix.de, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org, yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com,
mingo@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, oss-drivers@...ronome.com,
alexei.starovoitov@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] locking/static_key: improve rate limited labels
On Mon, Apr 01, 2019 at 11:21:53AM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Mar 2019 17:08:51 -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > Hi!
> >
> > This will be used to fix the static branch disabling in the TLS
> > code. The net/tls/ code should be using the deferred static
> > branch type, because unprivileged users can flip the branch
> > on and off quite easily with CONFIG_TLS_DEVICE=y.
> >
> > Second of all we shouldn't take the jump label locks from
> > the RX path, when the socket is destroyed. This can be avoided
> > with some slight code refactoring in deferred static_key as
> > it already runs from a workqueue.
> >
> > This the series (and a simple tls patch which makes use of it)
> > applied opening 0.5M TLS connections to localhost (just calling
> > setsockopt, no data exchange) goes down from 37.9s to 12.4s.
>
> Once/if we get positive feedback from locking folks, would it be
> possible to merge these via net-next tree alongside the patch
> converting TLS to rate limited branches?
Looks good. If routed through the network tree because usage there:
Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@...radead.org>
Otherwise let me know and I'll carry them.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists