* Larry H. <research@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:On 20:21 Sat 30 May , Ingo Molnar wrote:
Freeing keys is an utter slow-path (if not then the clearing is the least of our performance worries), so any clearing cost is in the noise. Furthermore, kzfree() is an existing facility already in use. If it's reused by your patches that brings further advantages: kzfree(), if it has any bugs, will be fixed. While if you add a parallel facility kzfree() stays broken.Have you benchmarked the addition of these changes? I would like to see benchmarks done for these (crypto api included), since you are proposing them.
You have it the wrong way around. _You_ have the burden of proof here really, you are trying to get patches into the upstream kernel. I'm not obliged to do your homework for you. I might be wrong, and you can prove me wrong.