> On Apr 8, 2016, at 17:37 , Segher Boessenkool <seg...@kernel.crashing.org> 
> wrote:
> 
> On Fri, Apr 08, 2016 at 10:24:50AM +0200, Olivier Hainque wrote:
>>> But I expect for stage4, the best solution is to strengthen the stack_tie 
>>> pattern to block all memory.  Early scheduling of the stack frame 
>>> deallocation (a simple logic insn) can't really be that important to 
>>> performance.
>> 
>> My feeling as well. At least, it can't be important enough to warrant
>> a sustained exposure to the kind of bug we're discussing here.
> 
> Is it a regression?  Changing this in stage 4, and this late in stage 4,
> is super invasive.  Wrt performance, well, I'd like to see numbers :-/

Sorry, my comment was ambiguous: "My feeling as well" etc was in reaction
to Richard's second sentence. I didn't mean to comment on what we want to
do or not for stage4.

Regarding perfs, I agree that having numbers would be good.

Nevertheless, I'd rather see some perf drop than just hoping for this not
to show up, in any case, and I remain convinced that whatever we gain seems
unlikely to be worth the risk of hitting this bug.

Olivier

Reply via email to