Re: [patch 0/5] Support for sanitization flag in low-level page allocator

Rik van Riel
2009-05-30T20:39:59Z

Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Larry H. <research@subreption.com> wrote:
>> On 20:21 Sat 30 May , Ingo Molnar wrote:

>>> Freeing keys is an utter slow-path (if not then the clearing is
>>> the least of our performance worries), so any clearing cost is
>>> in the noise. Furthermore, kzfree() is an existing facility
>>> already in use. If it's reused by your patches that brings
>>> further advantages: kzfree(), if it has any bugs, will be fixed.
>>> While if you add a parallel facility kzfree() stays broken.
>> Have you benchmarked the addition of these changes? I would like
>> to see benchmarks done for these (crypto api included), since you
>> are proposing them.
>
> You have it the wrong way around. _You_ have the burden of proof
> here really, you are trying to get patches into the upstream kernel.
> I'm not obliged to do your homework for you. I might be wrong, and
> you can prove me wrong.

Larry's patches do not do what you propose they
should do, so why would he have to benchmark your
idea?

--
All rights reversed.