On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 1:34 PM, Alex Thorlton <athorl...@sgi.com> wrote: >> What kind of workloads are you talking about? > > Our benchmarking team has a list of several of the SPEC OMP benchmarks > that perform significantly better when THP is disabled. I tried to get > the list but one of our servers is acting up and I can't get to it > right now :/ > >> What's wrong with madvise? Could you elaborate? > > The main issue with using madvise is that it's not an option with static > binaries, but there are also some users who have legacy Fortran code > that they're not willing/able to change. > >> And I think thp_disabled should be reset to 0 on exec. > > The main purpose for this getting carried down from the parent process > is that we'd like to be able to have a userland program set this flag on > itself, and then spawn off children who will also carry the flag. > This allows us to set the flag for programs where we're unable to modify > the code, thus resolving the issues detailed above.
This could be done with LD_PRELOAD for uncontrolled binaries. Though it does seem sensible to make it act like most personality flags do (i.e. inherited). -Kees -- Kees Cook Chrome OS Security -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
