On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 2:31 AM Jason Thorpe <thor...@me.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 13, 2019, at 7:17 AM, Greg Troxel <g...@lexort.com> wrote: > > > > 2) Your option 2 seems to involve two things at once: > > > > - migration to lwp_specificadata > > - using DEBUG instead of DIAGNOSTIC to control the leak check feature > > > > I do not understand why changing the nature of the implementation is > > linked to how it is enabled. > > I think Ozaki-san saying that the 3% performance hit only happens when > lwp_specificdata is used, and hence that it would need to be wrapped in DEBUG > rather than DIAGNOSTIC. > > The original negligible-impact implementation did NOT use lwp_specificdata, > and thus was fine for DIAGNOSTIC. I believe Ozaki-san's preference is to use > *this* implementation so that it can be exposed to a wider audience. The > lwp_specificdata approach was only explored after someone else suggested a > preference for it. > > At least, that's my understanding of the situation.
Yes, your understanding is correct. Thank you for the clarification. ozaki-r
