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 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?

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-04-16 18:33    [W:0.077 / U:41.376 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site