All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Kaigai Kohei" <kaigai@ak.jp.nec.com>
To: "James Morris" <jmorris@redhat.com>
Cc: "Stephen Smalley" <sds@epoch.ncsc.mil>,
	"SELinux-ML(Eng)" <selinux@tycho.nsa.gov>,
	"Linux Kernel ML(Eng)" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: RCU issue with SELinux (Re: SELINUX performance issues)
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 16:27:01 +0900	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <043101c489ab$bf6fe1d0$f97d220a@linux.bs1.fc.nec.co.jp> (raw)
In-Reply-To: Xine.LNX.4.44.0408201052160.22200-100000@dhcp83-76.boston.redhat.com

Hi James, Thanks for your comments.

> Do you have figures for 1 and 2 CPU?

The results of 1CPU and 2CPU  are following:  (2.6.8.1-RCU by take2 patch)
[write() to files on tmpfs Loop=500000 Parallel=<Num of CPU>]
                 -- 1CPU-- -- 2CPU-- -- 4CPU-- -- 8CPU-- --16CPU-- --32CPU--
2.6.8.1(disable)    8.2959    8.0430    8.0158    8.0183    8.0146    8.0037
2.6.8.1(enable)    11.8427   14.0358   78.0957  319.0451 1322.0313  too long
2.6.8.1.rwlock     11.2485   13.8688   20.0100   49.0390   90.0200  177.0533
2.6.8.1.rcu        11.3435   11.3319   11.0464   11.0205   11.0372   11.0496


> Also, can you run some more benchmarks, e.g. lmbench, unixbench, dbench 
> etc?

The results of unixbench and dbench are following:

o UNIXbench

* INDEX value comparison
                                       2.6.8.1   2.6.8.1   2.6.8.1   2.6.8.1
                                     (Disable)  (Enable)  (rwlock)     (RCU)
Dhrystone 2 using register variables    268.9     268.8     269.2     269.0
Double-Precision Whetstone               94.2      94.2      94.2      94.2
Execl Throughput                        388.3     379.0     377.8     377.9
File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks   606.6     526.6     515.6     504.8
File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks     508.9     417.0     410.4     395.2
File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks   987.1     890.4     876.0     857.9
Pipe Throughput                         525.1     406.4     404.5     408.8
Process Creation                        321.2     317.8     315.9     316.3
Shell Scripts (8 concurrent)           1312.8    1276.2    1278.8    1282.8
System Call Overhead                    467.1     468.7     464.1     467.2
                                    ========================================
     FINAL SCORE                        445.8     413.2     410.1     407.7


o dbench [ 4 processes run parallely on 4-CPUs / 10 times trials ]
                  ---- mean ----  - STD -
2.6.8.1(disable)  860.249 [MB/s]   44.683
2.6.8.1(enable)   714.254 [MB/s]   32.359
2.6.8.1(+rwlock)  767.904 [MB/s]   27.968
2.6.8.1(+RCU)     830.678 [MB/s]   16.352


> > > + hvalue = atomic_inc_return(&avc_cache.lru_hint) % AVC_CACHE_SLOTS;
> 
> atomic_inc_return() is not implemented on ia32 or x86-64.  Is there a 
> workaround, or do we need to implement it?  (Andi Kleen suggested using 
> the xadd instruction and altinstructions for i386).

Oops!
In IA-32 or x86_64, can anybady implement atomic_inc_return()?
If it can not, I'll try to make alternative macros or inline functions.

Thanks.
--------
Kai Gai <kaigai@ak.jp.nec.com>


--
This message was distributed to subscribers of the selinux mailing list.
If you no longer wish to subscribe, send mail to majordomo@tycho.nsa.gov with
the words "unsubscribe selinux" without quotes as the message.

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: "Kaigai Kohei" <kaigai@ak.jp.nec.com>
To: "James Morris" <jmorris@redhat.com>
Cc: "Stephen Smalley" <sds@epoch.ncsc.mil>,
	"SELinux-ML(Eng)" <selinux@tycho.nsa.gov>,
	"Linux Kernel ML(Eng)" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: RCU issue with SELinux (Re: SELINUX performance issues)
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 16:27:01 +0900	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <043101c489ab$bf6fe1d0$f97d220a@linux.bs1.fc.nec.co.jp> (raw)
In-Reply-To: Xine.LNX.4.44.0408201052160.22200-100000@dhcp83-76.boston.redhat.com

Hi James, Thanks for your comments.

> Do you have figures for 1 and 2 CPU?

The results of 1CPU and 2CPU  are following:  (2.6.8.1-RCU by take2 patch)
[write() to files on tmpfs Loop=500000 Parallel=<Num of CPU>]
                 -- 1CPU-- -- 2CPU-- -- 4CPU-- -- 8CPU-- --16CPU-- --32CPU--
2.6.8.1(disable)    8.2959    8.0430    8.0158    8.0183    8.0146    8.0037
2.6.8.1(enable)    11.8427   14.0358   78.0957  319.0451 1322.0313  too long
2.6.8.1.rwlock     11.2485   13.8688   20.0100   49.0390   90.0200  177.0533
2.6.8.1.rcu        11.3435   11.3319   11.0464   11.0205   11.0372   11.0496


> Also, can you run some more benchmarks, e.g. lmbench, unixbench, dbench 
> etc?

The results of unixbench and dbench are following:

o UNIXbench

* INDEX value comparison
                                       2.6.8.1   2.6.8.1   2.6.8.1   2.6.8.1
                                     (Disable)  (Enable)  (rwlock)     (RCU)
Dhrystone 2 using register variables    268.9     268.8     269.2     269.0
Double-Precision Whetstone               94.2      94.2      94.2      94.2
Execl Throughput                        388.3     379.0     377.8     377.9
File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks   606.6     526.6     515.6     504.8
File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks     508.9     417.0     410.4     395.2
File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks   987.1     890.4     876.0     857.9
Pipe Throughput                         525.1     406.4     404.5     408.8
Process Creation                        321.2     317.8     315.9     316.3
Shell Scripts (8 concurrent)           1312.8    1276.2    1278.8    1282.8
System Call Overhead                    467.1     468.7     464.1     467.2
                                    ========================================
     FINAL SCORE                        445.8     413.2     410.1     407.7


o dbench [ 4 processes run parallely on 4-CPUs / 10 times trials ]
                  ---- mean ----  - STD -
2.6.8.1(disable)  860.249 [MB/s]   44.683
2.6.8.1(enable)   714.254 [MB/s]   32.359
2.6.8.1(+rwlock)  767.904 [MB/s]   27.968
2.6.8.1(+RCU)     830.678 [MB/s]   16.352


> > > + hvalue = atomic_inc_return(&avc_cache.lru_hint) % AVC_CACHE_SLOTS;
> 
> atomic_inc_return() is not implemented on ia32 or x86-64.  Is there a 
> workaround, or do we need to implement it?  (Andi Kleen suggested using 
> the xadd instruction and altinstructions for i386).

Oops!
In IA-32 or x86_64, can anybady implement atomic_inc_return()?
If it can not, I'll try to make alternative macros or inline functions.

Thanks.
--------
Kai Gai <kaigai@ak.jp.nec.com>


  reply	other threads:[~2004-08-24  7:27 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 56+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2004-08-16  9:33 RCU issue with SELinux (Re: SELINUX performance issues) Kaigai Kohei
2004-08-16  9:33 ` Kaigai Kohei
2004-08-16 15:19 ` James Morris
2004-08-16 15:19   ` James Morris
2004-08-20 13:36   ` Kaigai Kohei
2004-08-20 14:53     ` James Morris
2004-08-20 14:53       ` James Morris
2004-08-24  7:27       ` Kaigai Kohei [this message]
2004-08-24  7:27         ` Kaigai Kohei
2004-08-24 13:24         ` James Morris
2004-08-24 13:24           ` James Morris
2004-08-25  9:51           ` Kaigai Kohei
2004-08-25  9:51             ` Kaigai Kohei
2004-08-25 18:31             ` James Morris
2004-08-25 18:31               ` James Morris
2004-08-25  9:52           ` [PATCH]atomic_inc_return() for i386/x86_64 (Re: RCU issue with SELinux) Kaigai Kohei
2004-08-20 17:31     ` RCU issue with SELinux (Re: SELINUX performance issues) Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
2004-08-20 17:31       ` Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
2004-08-20 18:15       ` James Morris
2004-08-20 18:15         ` James Morris
2004-08-20 20:19     ` Paul E. McKenney
2004-08-20 20:35       ` James Morris
2004-08-20 20:35         ` James Morris
2004-08-24  7:27       ` Kaigai Kohei
2004-08-24  7:27         ` Kaigai Kohei
     [not found]     ` <1093014789.16585.186.camel@moss-spartans.epoch.ncsc.mil>
2004-08-24  7:25       ` Kaigai Kohei
2004-08-24 15:37         ` Stephen Smalley
2004-08-24 15:37           ` Stephen Smalley
2004-08-25  9:51           ` Kaigai Kohei
2004-08-25 15:50             ` Stephen Smalley
2004-08-25 15:50               ` Stephen Smalley
2004-08-25 16:11               ` Stephen Smalley
2004-08-25 16:11                 ` Stephen Smalley
2004-08-26  7:53               ` Kaigai Kohei
2004-08-26  7:53                 ` Kaigai Kohei
2004-08-26 13:24                 ` Stephen Smalley
2004-08-26 13:24                   ` Stephen Smalley
2004-08-27 11:07                   ` Kaigai Kohei
2004-08-27 11:07                     ` Kaigai Kohei
2004-08-30 11:17                   ` [PATCH]SELinux performance improvement by RCU (Re: RCU issue with SELinux) Kaigai Kohei
2004-08-30 15:35                     ` Stephen Smalley
2004-08-30 15:35                       ` Stephen Smalley
2004-08-30 16:13                       ` Paul E. McKenney
2004-08-30 16:13                         ` Paul E. McKenney
2004-08-31  4:33                         ` Kaigai Kohei
2004-08-31  4:33                           ` Kaigai Kohei
2004-08-31 16:20                           ` Paul E. McKenney
2004-08-31 16:20                             ` Paul E. McKenney
2004-08-31 15:33                     ` James Morris
2004-08-31 15:33                       ` James Morris
2004-08-24 23:02         ` RCU issue with SELinux (Re: SELINUX performance issues) Paul E. McKenney
2004-08-24 23:02           ` Paul E. McKenney
2004-08-25  9:51           ` Kaigai Kohei
2004-08-25  9:51             ` Kaigai Kohei
2004-08-25 17:34             ` Paul E. McKenney
2004-08-25 17:34               ` Paul E. McKenney

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to='043101c489ab$bf6fe1d0$f97d220a@linux.bs1.fc.nec.co.jp' \
    --to=kaigai@ak.jp.nec.com \
    --cc=jmorris@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=sds@epoch.ncsc.mil \
    --cc=selinux@tycho.nsa.gov \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.