Date: Fri, 12 May 2006 21:58:09 -0400 From: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> To: Dmitry Pryanishnikov <dmitry@atlantis.dp.ua> Cc: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.org, Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: RELENG_4 -> 5 -> 6: significant performance regression Message-ID: <20060513015809.GA18438@xor.obsecurity.org> In-Reply-To: <20060512232806.Q35558@atlantis.atlantis.dp.ua> References: <20060427160536.M96305@atlantis.atlantis.dp.ua> <20060502181118.M92256@fledge.watson.org> <20060512232806.Q35558@atlantis.atlantis.dp.ua>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[-- Attachment #1 --] On Fri, May 12, 2006 at 11:32:44PM +0300, Dmitry Pryanishnikov wrote: > > Hello! > > On Tue, 2 May 2006, Robert Watson wrote: > >>options INVARIANTS > >>options INVARIANT_SUPPORT > > > >In FreeBSD 5.x and FreeBSD 6.x, the INVARIANTS option has been > >significantly expanded to test a much larger set of invariants, and also > >incorporate kernel use-after-free checking, which involves memory > >scrubbing. This is great for catching bugs, but it will have a > >significant performance impact, especially for kernel-intensive loads. > > So maybe it's time to add, say, > > options INVARIANTS_EXTENDED > > for these new and expensive checks, and leave only basic and cheap (yet > effective for bug hunting) asserts enabled when only > > options INVARIANTS > > is defined? No, they are all effective for bug hunting. You just need to be aware that it is incompatible with performance. Kris [-- Attachment #2 --] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFEZT0xWry0BWjoQKURAsQxAKDQaF/Q7mL5aMt4a45MqKDmhgBP+wCg82BL nSYJ3OooAiLI8E4E8a15QLY= =ujRL -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060513015809.GA18438>