public inbox for linux-audit@redhat.com
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Alexander Viro <aviro@redhat.com>
To: Steve Grubb <sgrubb@redhat.com>
Cc: redhat-lspp@redhat.com, linux-audit@redhat.com
Subject: Re: Watch Performance
Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 12:34:41 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20060510163441.GT29125@devserv.devel.redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200605101132.40445.sgrubb@redhat.com>

On Wed, May 10, 2006 at 11:32:40AM -0400, Steve Grubb wrote:
> On Tuesday 11 April 2006 17:01, Steve Grubb wrote:
> > OK, I re-worked auditctl to use these syscalls instead of "all". I then
> > re-ran the tests on the same kernel as I was testing on since lspp.17 has
> > slab debug stuff turned on again.
> >
> > rules ?seconds ? ?loss
> > 0 ? ? ? ?50 ? ? ? ? ? ?0%
> > 10 ? ? ?52 ? ? ? ? ? ?4%
> > 25 ? ? ?56 ? ? ? ? ? ?12%
> > 50 ? ? ?69 ? ? ? ? ? ?38%
> > 75 ? ? ?81 ? ? ? ? ? ?62%
> > 90 ? ? ?87 ? ? ? ? ? ?74%
> 
> I re-ran the analysis with the lspp.24 kernel. This is the results:
> 
> rules  seconds    loss
> 0        57.4           0.0%
> 10      57.8           0.7%
> 25      56.7         +1.2%
> 50      58.6           2.1%
> 75      59.7           4.0%
> 90      59.1           3.0%
> 
> 
> The results look good for this test case. Thanks to everyone that helped solve 
> this problem! Good job.

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.  If this difference is real, it should show
up in profiles in enough details...

  reply	other threads:[~2006-05-10 16:34 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2006-04-08 16:21 Watch Performance Steve Grubb
2006-04-09 19:48 ` Steve Grubb
2006-04-11 13:12   ` Steve Grubb
2006-04-11  3:51 ` Amy Griffis
2006-04-11 10:26   ` Steve Grubb
2006-04-11 16:11     ` Amy Griffis
2006-04-11 21:01       ` Steve Grubb
2006-04-11 21:21         ` Linda Knippers
2006-04-12 21:15         ` Amy Griffis
2006-04-17 15:27           ` Timothy R. Chavez
2006-04-17 20:06             ` Klaus Weidner
2006-04-21 15:01               ` Amy Griffis
2006-04-21 15:13                 ` Steve Grubb
2006-04-21 15:10                   ` Linda Knippers
2006-04-21 16:07                     ` Alexander Viro
2006-04-24 15:34                       ` Amy Griffis
2006-05-10 15:32         ` Steve Grubb
2006-05-10 16:34           ` Alexander Viro [this message]
2006-05-10 19:23             ` Steve Grubb
2006-05-10 19:37               ` Alexander Viro
2006-05-10 19:51                 ` Steve Grubb

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=20060510163441.GT29125@devserv.devel.redhat.com \
    --to=aviro@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-audit@redhat.com \
    --cc=redhat-lspp@redhat.com \
    --cc=sgrubb@redhat.com \
    /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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox