From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Feb 25 00:52:18 2015 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8B08281D; Wed, 25 Feb 2015 00:52:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-lb0-x22f.google.com (mail-lb0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c04::22f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 03E5565D; Wed, 25 Feb 2015 00:52:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: by lbjb6 with SMTP id b6so611644lbj.2; Tue, 24 Feb 2015 16:52:16 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=hpoCm6Yh7KrLkgM3ABml2S4PfEcz1dpHLCL0A/1ZcQQ=; b=BAlL+kfM1hFS/1rJcHJMx/pWUdpCiztw8qO3U89AX2zMD58vg/WFzbkjV4+qmSe2ye r1Wksicu78rY/5rWhmF65E5ACbIpHc+nsJmVHRUVXhPeRJr+Q59we5y4gUpDxfbRAJ0Q rxv1tCLVsDmOy3hM2APfm0RiH1Cl46rYpWC5h/NAeAlpNnTH5C/N3Xf4ZcvT5TA2Zvoz h7fvMn6YvyTzqdO9u5/Ef5U01Ef/2Vs/A7XtGHzOxpvBWuj1lwdUDXmR8/Dic1g9NF9R n070gTJwOUR11a67TK+98O1uypjJ+/2esx2JAzYRRuQySKuvJnVy+rvONe04n0Qa+XY6 jxpA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.152.10.66 with SMTP id g2mr549726lab.44.1424825536205; Tue, 24 Feb 2015 16:52:16 -0800 (PST) Sender: kmacybsd@gmail.com Received: by 10.25.77.74 with HTTP; Tue, 24 Feb 2015 16:52:16 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20150225002301.GS46794@funkthat.com> References: <20150224015721.GT74514@kib.kiev.ua> <54EBDC1C.3060007@astrodoggroup.com> <20150224024250.GV74514@kib.kiev.ua> <20150224174053.GG46794@funkthat.com> <54ECBD4B.6000007@freebsd.org> <20150224182507.GI46794@funkthat.com> <54ECEA43.2080008@freebsd.org> <20150224231921.GQ46794@funkthat.com> <20150225002301.GS46794@funkthat.com> Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2015 16:52:16 -0800 X-Google-Sender-Auth: bH6SiaG-Ms9VvxhEBYzIB_1UrDk Message-ID: Subject: Re: locks and kernel randomness... From: "K. Macy" To: John-Mark Gurney Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Cc: Konstantin Belousov , Harrison Grundy , Alfred Perlstein , "freebsd-arch@freebsd.org" X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18-1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2015 00:52:18 -0000 On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 4:23 PM, John-Mark Gurney wrote: > K. Macy wrote this message on Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 15:33 -0800: >> > If someone does find a performance issue w/ my patch, I WILL work with >> > them on a solution, but I will not work w/ people who make unfounded >> > claims about the impact of this work... >> > >> >> ... The concerns may be exaggerated, but they aren't >> unfounded. Not quite the same thing, but no one wants to spend the > > Till someone shows me code in the kernel tree where this is even close > to a performance problem, it is unfounded... I've asked, and no one > has In these sorts of situations the thing to do is to ask for case where performance would be adversely effected and the burden would be on you to show that they're not. If there are none forthcoming, then you're done. > > I'm not discussing this until you read and reply to my original email, > since it's clear that my original email's contents has been ignored in > this thread... > A patch for review on phabricator would do much to alleviate any concerns. I apologize if I missed the reference to that. -K