Hi, Linus, Linus Torvalds <[email protected]> writes:
> On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 5:10 PM kernel test robot <[email protected]> > 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
