Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Tue, 16 Apr 2019 09:33:15 -0700
From:   Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@netronome.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc:     tglx@linutronix.de, David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>,
        ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org, yamada.masahiro@socionext.com,
        mingo@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        netdev@vger.kernel.org, oss-drivers@netronome.com,
        alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] locking/static_key: improve rate limited labels
Message-ID: <20190416093315.4f8fee4f@cakuba.netronome.com>
In-Reply-To: <20190404102902.GW4038@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20190330000854.30142-1-jakub.kicinski@netronome.com>
        <20190401112153.2f9e87ba@cakuba.hsd1.ca.comcast.net>
        <20190404102902.GW4038@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Organization: Netronome Systems, Ltd.
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

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?