lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Apr]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 0/3] locking/static_key: improve rate limited labels
    On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 09:33:15AM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
    > On Thu, 4 Apr 2019 12:29:02 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
    > > 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@infradead.org>
    > >
    > > Otherwise let me know and I'll carry them.
    >
    > Hi Peter! I was initially hoping that a1247d06d010
    > ("locking/static_key: Fix false positive warnings on concurrent dec/inc")
    > may go into 5.1, but it's not really a regression. It will conflict, so
    > the net-next route won't work. Would you be able to carry this set
    > after all?

    n/p, done!

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2019-04-16 19:39    [W:3.052 / U:3.404 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site