[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAKv+Gu-Fx0w2FiHmJExKM=sBA3MwOr5KOKa6jQ7cB0aBBgPDQw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2018 13:57:55 +0000
From: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>
To: Jinbum Park <jinb.park7@...il.com>
Cc: Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@....com>, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Kernel Hardening <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>, Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, boqun.feng@...il.com,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@...aro.org>, mickael.guene@...com,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, Laura Abbott <labbott@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm: kernel: implement fast refcount checking
On 3 January 2018 at 13:36, Jinbum Park <jinb.park7@...il.com> wrote:
>>> This is a nice result. However, without any insight into the presence
>>> of actual refcount hot spots, it is not obvious that we need this
>>> patch. This is the reason we ended up enabling CONFIG_REFCOUNT_FULL
>>> for arm64. I will let others comment on whether we want this patch in
>>> the first place,
>
> Dear Ard, Dave,
>
> I wanna hear some comment on above point.
> Is CONFIG_REFCOUNT_FULL much better for arm?
> If it is, I don't need to prepare v2 patch. (then, just needed to add
> "select REFCOUNT_FULL")
>
Well, we should probably turn that around. Please use REFCOUNT_FULL,
until you run into a use case where the slowdown is noticeable. If
nobody ever notices, we don't need to fix anything.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
