8 ms·

TBH it's entirely in character with "make X Y again" to give some recommendations that are super straightforward and sound appealing, don't make a case that X i

by geofft 7y ago

TBH it's entirely in character with "make X Y again" to give some recommendations that are super straightforward and sound appealing, don't make a case that X is in fact no longer Y, completely ignore why those recommendations haven't been implemented thus far, and don't spend any time thinking about whether there's even the slightest downside to those recommendations (which are in fact super dangerous/harmful).

shuntress 7y ago
Very well said. I would add that it is also needlessly antagonistic in addition to be being in poor taste.
- shuntress 7y ago
  To be clear: I mean that using "Make X Y Again" is antagonistic and in poor taste. GP of this comment is well stated and accurate.
RIMR 7y ago
I know it's in bad taste to get political on HN, so I won't say any names, but yes, this is very true of every "Make X Y Again" thing I am aware of.
- oneplane 7y ago
  I'm not aware of any examples where "Make X Y Again" was a positive thing.
  - m463 7y ago
    So Don't Make America Great Again?
- jonfw 7y ago
  We're all smart enough to read between the lines here- although you've barely avoided saying 'Trump' this is very clearly a political message One of the reasons I like HN is it generally avoids such shallow political talk.
  - jshevek 7y ago
    The crisis has changed people's online behavior, and the shallow culture of other sites is becoming normalized on HN. Please flag where appropriate.
    - shrimp_emoji 7y ago
      Is the Fedora-tipping meta here to be "deep" enough that you have an open mind toward prejudice, xenophobia, gross idiocy, et al?
      - jshevek 7y ago
        Please take the time to read this over: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
      - jonfw 7y ago
        There isn't a high bar of 'deepness' required here, but thinly veiled political insults with zero substance don't meet it. Ill pull something out of the guidelines jshrevek posted for those who don't want to read through the whole thing > Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. That destroys the curiosity this site exists for. I'll add that using the term 'gross idiocy' also violates these guidelines.
        jshevek 7y ago
        Thank you for responding politely and meaningfully to the snarky, partisan flamebait.
  - craftinator 7y ago
    Is there a possibility this whole project is in jest? It's called "Make Linux Fast Again", and it deliberately disables reasonable security measures to achieve its goal. Could be a political statement in the negative!
    - 7y ago
- dang 7y ago
  The issue isn't bad taste, it's starting flamewars. Please don't. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
kick 7y ago
The most essential person in kernel dev linked this just the other day, presumably seriously, in reply to an AMA question: 75 points · 2 days ago If my environment doesn't need to worry about executing malicious code and I want syscalls to happen as fast as possible, is there a single/simple option to disable all the performance killing hardware mitigations? gregkh Verified 183 points · 2 days ago https://make-linux-fast-again.com/ https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/fx5e4v/im_greg_kroahhartman_linux_kernel_developer_ama/fmsrbw6/ https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/fx5e4v/im_greg_kroah...
- 2bitencryption 7y ago
  ...doesn't that exactly answer the question that was asked??
- geofft 7y ago
  Sure. That's a very big "if," and the most essential person in kernel dev has the ability to make that the default if he wants. There's a reason he hasn't. (If your environment actually doesn't need to worry about executing malicious code and you want to make syscalls as fast as possible, try a unikernel or implementing your code in a kernel module. Or, depending on what you're doing, try kernel bypass to get to the devices you care about and use something like https://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/816298/4aed890ee2dbffff/ https://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/816298/4aed890ee2dbffff/ to pin your user code to certain cores and get the kernel completely out of the way. Having to transition out of user mode to access hardware instead of making plain function calls, having to change page tables between processes, etc. are all performance-killing mitigations of their own. http://www.csl.cornell.edu/~delimitrou/papers/2019.asplos.xcontainer.pdf http://www.csl.cornell.edu/~delimitrou/papers/2019.asplos.xc... found a 27x performance improvement by getting rid of the privilege boundary between userspace and kernelspace - if you really care about performance and really don't care about malicious code, why would you leave a 27x speedup on the table and worry about a small percentage improvement from these flags??)
  - kentonv 7y ago
    I don't agree. Telling people to write in kernel mode if they care about performance isn't realistic. For most people that would mean completely rewriting their code from scratch, foregoing high-level software stacks and languages, giving up on most databases, giving up on all manner of tools and techniques for high-velocity software development, giving up fault tolerance, dealing directly with fiddly hardware issues (when do I need a TLB shootdown?), etc. Whereas disabling spectre mitigations is a one-line config change. For use cases where local system security really doesn't matter (of which there are a lot, let's be honest), a one-line config change for a 25% (or whatever it is now) performance boost is a pretty damned good deal.

by geofft 7y ago

shuntress 7y ago

Very well said. I would add that it is also needlessly antagonistic in addition to be being in poor taste.

shuntress 7y ago
To be clear: I mean that using "Make X Y Again" is antagonistic and in poor taste. GP of this comment is well stated and accurate.

RIMR 7y ago

I know it's in bad taste to get political on HN, so I won't say any names, but yes, this is very true of every "Make X Y Again" thing I am aware of.

oneplane 7y ago
I'm not aware of any examples where "Make X Y Again" was a positive thing.
- m463 7y ago
  So Don't Make America Great Again?
jonfw 7y ago
We're all smart enough to read between the lines here- although you've barely avoided saying 'Trump' this is very clearly a political message One of the reasons I like HN is it generally avoids such shallow political talk.
- jshevek 7y ago
  The crisis has changed people's online behavior, and the shallow culture of other sites is becoming normalized on HN. Please flag where appropriate.
  - shrimp_emoji 7y ago
    Is the Fedora-tipping meta here to be "deep" enough that you have an open mind toward prejudice, xenophobia, gross idiocy, et al?
    - jshevek 7y ago
      Please take the time to read this over: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    - jonfw 7y ago
      There isn't a high bar of 'deepness' required here, but thinly veiled political insults with zero substance don't meet it. Ill pull something out of the guidelines jshrevek posted for those who don't want to read through the whole thing > Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. That destroys the curiosity this site exists for. I'll add that using the term 'gross idiocy' also violates these guidelines.
      - jshevek 7y ago
        Thank you for responding politely and meaningfully to the snarky, partisan flamebait.
- craftinator 7y ago
  Is there a possibility this whole project is in jest? It's called "Make Linux Fast Again", and it deliberately disables reasonable security measures to achieve its goal. Could be a political statement in the negative!
  - 7y ago
dang 7y ago
The issue isn't bad taste, it's starting flamewars. Please don't. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

kick 7y ago

The most essential person in kernel dev linked this just the other day, presumably seriously, in reply to an AMA question: 75 points · 2 days ago If my environment doesn't need to worry about executing malicious code and I want syscalls to happen as fast as possible, is there a single/simple option to disable all the performance killing hardware mitigations? gregkh Verified 183 points · 2 days ago https://make-linux-fast-again.com/ https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/fx5e4v/im_greg_kroahhartman_linux_kernel_developer_ama/fmsrbw6/ https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/fx5e4v/im_greg_kroah...

2bitencryption 7y ago
...doesn't that exactly answer the question that was asked??
geofft 7y ago
Sure. That's a very big "if," and the most essential person in kernel dev has the ability to make that the default if he wants. There's a reason he hasn't. (If your environment actually doesn't need to worry about executing malicious code and you want to make syscalls as fast as possible, try a unikernel or implementing your code in a kernel module. Or, depending on what you're doing, try kernel bypass to get to the devices you care about and use something like https://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/816298/4aed890ee2dbffff/ https://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/816298/4aed890ee2dbffff/ to pin your user code to certain cores and get the kernel completely out of the way. Having to transition out of user mode to access hardware instead of making plain function calls, having to change page tables between processes, etc. are all performance-killing mitigations of their own. http://www.csl.cornell.edu/~delimitrou/papers/2019.asplos.xcontainer.pdf http://www.csl.cornell.edu/~delimitrou/papers/2019.asplos.xc... found a 27x performance improvement by getting rid of the privilege boundary between userspace and kernelspace - if you really care about performance and really don't care about malicious code, why would you leave a 27x speedup on the table and worry about a small percentage improvement from these flags??)
- kentonv 7y ago
  I don't agree. Telling people to write in kernel mode if they care about performance isn't realistic. For most people that would mean completely rewriting their code from scratch, foregoing high-level software stacks and languages, giving up on most databases, giving up on all manner of tools and techniques for high-velocity software development, giving up fault tolerance, dealing directly with fiddly hardware issues (when do I need a TLB shootdown?), etc. Whereas disabling spectre mitigations is a one-line config change. For use cases where local system security really doesn't matter (of which there are a lot, let's be honest), a one-line config change for a 25% (or whatever it is now) performance boost is a pretty damned good deal.