Re: Watch Performance

Steve Grubb
2006-05-10T19:23:02Z

On Wednesday 10 May 2006 12:34, Alexander Viro wrote:
> Hrm...  Results do look good, but I wonder what had given us >10% loss
> in the baseline.  Would be nice if somebody rerun the tests with 0 rules
> on lspp.24 and whatever had been used to generate original numbers and
> did it with profiling enabled.

I have that data. Original:

1295 __d_lookup 4.7786
1286 __link_path_walk 0.3405
798 avc_has_perm_noaudit 0.9099
701 _atomic_dec_and_lock 8.3452
521 audit_getname 2.0038
513 do_path_lookup 0.6877
377 _raw_spin_lock 1.5907
351 dput 0.8125
340 kmem_cache_free 1.0059
265 strncpy_from_user 2.2845
265 inode_has_perm 2.6768
263 _raw_read_lock 1.6646

Latest:
1376 __d_lookup 5.0588
1104 __link_path_walk 0.2803
997 avc_has_perm_noaudit 1.1368
940 do_path_lookup 1.2617
677 _atomic_dec_and_lock 7.6932
627 _raw_spin_lock 2.6456
448 dput 1.0370
421 kmem_cache_free 1.1566
417 inode_has_perm 4.2121
386 audit_getname 1.4846
381 link_path_walk 1.6638
333 audit_syscall_exit 0.3927

I think do_path_lookup & _raw_spin_lock jump out as the biggest changes.

-Steve