On Wed, Oct 02, 2013 at 12:38:54PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote: > On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 12:00 PM, Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org> wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 02, 2013 at 11:10:15AM -0700, Kees Cook wrote: > >> Seems like a simple enough solution. Surely there must be a catch. :) > > > > I didn't want to add this to the core mm just for perf.. > > It seems like it would be pretty inexpensive. It might also be > valuable in other situations. Not that I can think of any at the > moment. Additionally, it could likely be hidden by a CONFIG, so that > if perf isn't built in, there's no change?
You optimist, you think you can build a kernel without perf? ;-) Its just that I would hate to add more completely global state to the fork() path. The tasklist_lock might be hard to crack, but at least the pid-hash could use per bucket locks (it doesn't apparently). I suppose people don't really care that much about fork() performance; which is sad. KSM and THP also add their own global locks :-( -- 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/
