[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20190617151027.6422016d74a7dc4c7a562fc6@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2019 15:10:27 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>
Cc: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>, Michal Hocko
<mhocko@...nel.org>, James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>, "Serge E. Hallyn"
<serge@...lyn.com>, Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>, Kostya
Serebryany <kcc@...gle.com>, Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>, Sandeep
Patil <sspatil@...roid.com>, Laura Abbott <labbott@...hat.com>, Randy
Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>, Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>, Mark Rutland
<mark.rutland@....com>, Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 1/2] mm: security: introduce init_on_alloc=1 and
init_on_free=1 boot options
On Mon, 17 Jun 2019 17:10:49 +0200 Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com> wrote:
> Slowdown for the new features compared to init_on_free=0,
> init_on_alloc=0:
>
> hackbench, init_on_free=1: +7.62% sys time (st.err 0.74%)
> hackbench, init_on_alloc=1: +7.75% sys time (st.err 2.14%)
Sanity check time. Is anyone really going to use this? Seriously,
honestly, for real? If "yes" then how did we determine that?
Also, a bit of a nit: "init_on_alloc" and "init_on_free" aren't very
well chosen names for the boot options - they could refer to any kernel
object at all, really. init_pages_on_alloc would be better? I don't think
this matters much - the boot options are already chaotic. But still...
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.
