[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Hardening patch


On Sun, 11 Sep 2011, Guillem Jover wrote:
> > +	"bindnow" => 1
> Any reason you seem to have ignored the concerns I rised about
> defaulting to bindnow?

Well, you mentioned potential performance problems and Kees said
that his tests did not conclude that it resulted in significant
performance loss. Kees has been doing the work, I trust him.

You told that you would expect the loss to be more significant
on slower architectures but you did not backup that claim with
anything. Of course 5% more of 200ms is not the same than 5%
of 2s but other than that, I do not see any technical reason
why they would be more affected than i386/amd64.

> In any case I don't think enabling this w/o further data demonstrating
> it's fine to do so is acceptable, as fixing any such regression would
> imply needing to hunt down packages built with the new flags and trigger
> binNMUs for them all. The default for it can always be changed later
> on, I don't see the need to rush it?

Feel free to change it if you think it's better that way. I'm not attached
to it.

But I'm not convinced that anyone will do the research that you require on
non-mainstream architectures and we will just end up with bindnow
disabled for the indefinite future.

OTOH I don't think that a 5% performance loss at startup time will ever be
used as a reason to bin-NMU all affected packages but only those that
are so big that they are suffering from it or a few that are performance

Your mileage may vary.

Please do the change yourself if you want it, I will soon go away for
the rest of the day.

Raphaël Hertzog ◈ Debian Developer

Follow my Debian News ▶ http://RaphaelHertzog.com (English)
                      ▶ http://RaphaelHertzog.fr (Français)

Reply to: