From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from sourceware.org (server2.sourceware.org [8.43.85.97]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 86B481F55B for ; Mon, 1 Jun 2020 19:38:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from server2.sourceware.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A7E13387086A; Mon, 1 Jun 2020 19:38:55 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org A7E13387086A DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceware.org; s=default; t=1591040335; bh=kjoKvwrliBakLB4fAuKP0pgU3ngXrxup2Q7ZbFtkcUY=; h=References:In-Reply-To:Date:Subject:To:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe:From:Reply-To:Cc: From; b=J3ZS6bfePAntlEr4J9cIbO90C6QtPHsSxVDmjOeIKas0FH/qVcEKe/HhKylII8KqU VZ216bCZKXxSfSo4tg6rkdZEuvNnBE9quhKOZ0VOUyCu/w9FiF/52zumzsXAumvnMj +ragZg+0K85I/lVYLUsBUGaE4yA0hz9e7mY/r7kg= Received: from us-smtp-delivery-1.mimecast.com (us-smtp-1.mimecast.com [207.211.31.81]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 665CA386F831 for ; Mon, 1 Jun 2020 19:38:51 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org 665CA386F831 Received: from mail-ed1-f71.google.com (mail-ed1-f71.google.com [209.85.208.71]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-191-uVNhcXuJMYGX8mtaFHl63w-1; Mon, 01 Jun 2020 15:38:47 -0400 X-MC-Unique: uVNhcXuJMYGX8mtaFHl63w-1 Received: by mail-ed1-f71.google.com with SMTP id w23so5459862edt.18 for ; Mon, 01 Jun 2020 12:38:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=kjoKvwrliBakLB4fAuKP0pgU3ngXrxup2Q7ZbFtkcUY=; b=bS7bBFp59VURoC8x5pajOLIxqmD/2WO7jvcZlTMy0RYquQj8hY4jh5/p41ZpICYa6e PHntSBf8k3WbK1Y2JnPIR5xgM0boMWWjnDYwfLpeT49JPGnXdHglRznTCAVwLXHUaZmv 1ZEZ7HZHSbrqL8tilqPBICGLGUwBtwQUrC0BeqYAoxQGPS33ypHhlMB3lkIejzackQuU hYePfxf/A2KNIdSzO1HVgs6e/g1J0+qX+bgOR0tMCo46xXpevgqBDAHWw3N86UpJcBOr EbGoVUDh7MKtQCtJSYxzO4E02vc7NZSXS2qFjSONveaaXdUSJLf3YArmoK/36Yez9PAT VNTA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533iUmlKKotYlq7tJJnc6Ry5Kneh+/m4Vh47wRWsG5kFQyKnQZk3 vkyU1r4EvbLvIvyG7WB+nvFLiiZpzRWMPJKAbEHBBB7UP0unY0AQeT+xXEpXO0l2endjhx389FA xxaE66SSQULaQtcuuoBOBgBkcFCSWsK+hPkl7 X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:f112:: with SMTP id gv18mr20218725ejb.142.1591040325826; Mon, 01 Jun 2020 12:38:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxR7Cy9dWK12biq9J8N6aDuJZUhFQiGDU+omumWV3zs+xYgU8sn17JmJIh9JnoRKht4Ydi7i470NdxFV/X7a8Y= X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:f112:: with SMTP id gv18mr20218712ejb.142.1591040325649; Mon, 01 Jun 2020 12:38:45 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <15ec783d-46f5-0166-aee9-f1d16a58ca83@huawei.com> In-Reply-To: Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2020 15:38:34 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: Add thresholds for "rep movsb/stosb" to tunables To: "H.J. Lu" X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-BeenThere: libc-alpha@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Libc-alpha mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , From: Carlos O'Donell via Libc-alpha Reply-To: Carlos O'Donell Cc: Hushiyuan , "libc-alpha@sourceware.org" Errors-To: libc-alpha-bounces@sourceware.org Sender: "Libc-alpha" On Mon, Jun 1, 2020 at 3:33 PM H.J. Lu wrote: > Did you mean adding --list-tunables to ld.so? libc.so.6 doesn't take > any arguments. Yes, I mean adding argument processing to libc.so.6, and handling --list-tunables. We have enough infrastructure in place that wiring that up shouldn't be too bad? Then, even in trimmed down containers, you can just run /lib64/libc.so.6 --list-tunables and get back the list of tunables and their min, max, and security values. The alternative is a glibc-tunables binary which does only this, but that seems like waste. Cheers, Carlos.