Messages in this thread | | | From | "Huang\, Ying" <> | Subject | Re: [lkp-robot] [Kbuild] 050e9baa9d: netperf.Throughput_total_tps -5.6% regression (FYI) | Date | Thu, 21 Jun 2018 16:25:53 +0800 |
| |
Hi, Linus,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> writes:
> On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 5:10 PM kernel test robot <xiaolong.ye@intel.com> wrote: >> >> FYI, we noticed a -5.6% regression of netperf.Throughput_total_tps >> due to commit 050e9b ("Kbuild: rename CC_STACKPROTECTOR[_STRONG] >> config variables") > > That's perhaps a surprisingly large cost to stack protector, but you > did move from "no stack protector at all": > >> $ grep STACKPROTECTOR config-4.17.0-11782-gbe779f0 >> CONFIG_HAVE_CC_STACKPROTECTOR=y >> CONFIG_CC_HAS_STACKPROTECTOR_NONE=y >> # CONFIG_CC_STACKPROTECTOR is not set >> CONFIG_CC_HAS_SANE_STACKPROTECTOR=y > > To having the *strong* stack protector enabled: > >> $ grep STACKPROTECTOR config-4.17.0-11783-g050e9baa >> CONFIG_HAVE_CC_STACKPROTECTOR=y >> CONFIG_CC_HAS_STACKPROTECTOR_NONE=y >> CONFIG_STACKPROTECTOR=y >> CONFIG_STACKPROTECTOR_STRONG=y >> CONFIG_CC_HAS_SANE_STACKPROTECTOR=y > > so you're testing the "no overhead" case to the "worst overhead" case.
Do you have interest in some other comparison?
Best Regards, Huang, Ying
| |