On 19/01/2026 16:44, Kees Cook wrote: > > > On January 19, 2026 8:00:00 AM PST, Dave Hansen <[email protected]> wrote: >> On 1/19/26 05:01, Ryan Roberts wrote: >>> x86 (AWS Sapphire Rapids): >>> +-----------------+--------------+-------------+---------------+ >>> | Benchmark | Result Class | v6.18-rc5 | per-task-prng | >>> | | | rndstack-on | | >>> | | | | | >>> +=================+==============+=============+===============+ >>> | syscall/getpid | mean (ns) | (R) 13.32% | (R) 4.60% | >>> | | p99 (ns) | (R) 13.38% | (R) 18.08% | >>> | | p99.9 (ns) | 16.26% | (R) 19.38% | >> >> Like you noted, this is surprising. This would be a good thing to make >> sure it goes in very early after -rc1 and gets plenty of wide testing. > > Right, we are pretty late in the dev cycle (rc6). It would be prudent to get > this into -next after the coming rc1 (1 month from now). > > On the other hand, the changes are pretty "binary" in the sense that mistakes > should be VERY visible right away. Would it be better to take this into -next > immediately instead?
I don't think this question was really addressed to me, but I'll give my opinion anyway; I agree it's pretty binary - it will either work or it will explode. I've tested on arm64 and x86_64 so I have high confidence that it works. If you get it into -next ASAP it has 3 weeks to soak before the merge window opens right? (Linus said he would do an -rc8 this cycle). That feels like enough time to me. But it's your tree ;-) Thanks, Ryan > >> But I don't see any problems with the approach, and the move to common >> code looks like a big win as well: > > Agreed; I think it's looking great. >
