linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] sched/uclamp: Protect uclamp fast path code with static key

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]

Message-ID: <20200619194749.GK576888@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Fri, 19 Jun 2020 21:47:49 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>
Cc:     Qais Yousef <qais.yousef@....com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
        Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@...bug.net>,
        Chris Redpath <chrid.redpath@....com>,
        Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@....com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] sched/uclamp: Protect uclamp fast path code with
 static key

On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 02:25:20PM +0100, Valentin Schneider wrote:
> 
> On 19/06/20 13:51, Qais Yousef wrote:
> > On 06/19/20 11:36, Valentin Schneider wrote:
> >>
> >> On 18/06/20 20:55, Qais Yousef wrote:
> >> > There is a report that when uclamp is enabled, a netperf UDP test
> >> > regresses compared to a kernel compiled without uclamp.
> >> >
> >> > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20200529100806.GA3070@suse.de/
> >> >
> >>
> >> ISTR the perennial form for those is: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/<message-id>
> >
> > The link is correct permalinnk from lore and contains the message-id as Peter
> > likes and he has accepted this form before.
> >
> 
> I think the objections I remember were on using lkml.org rather than
> lkml.kernel.org. Sorry!

:-) Yeah, lkml.org is bad.

That said, I prefer the lkml.kernel.org/r/ variant over
lore.kernel.org/lkml/ in part because it existed first and I'm lazy, in
part because it's shorter and in part because lkml.kernel.org/r/ is an
explicit redirect and lore is 'just' an archive it can redirect to
(although admittedly, it looks rather unlikely lore is going to die).

I'll not make a big point of it though and will in all likelyhood accept
lore links. The important point is that it has the MessageID in.