From: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@kernel.org>
To: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Cc: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@kernel.org>,
linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org, Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.ibm.com>,
syzbot+c15de43f1e7fffbb7b9b@syzkaller.appspotmail.com,
Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@huawei.com>,
Dmitry Kasatkin <dmitry.kasatkin@gmail.com>,
Eric Snowberg <eric.snowberg@oracle.com>,
Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>,
James Morris <jmorris@namei.org>,
"Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@hallyn.com>,
"open list:SECURITY SUBSYSTEM"
<linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org>,
open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"open list:KEYS/KEYRINGS" <keyrings@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] KEYS: key_garbage_collector(): process in chunks
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2026 18:45:15 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <auN4G05kSzZepLE3@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <auNZIm0meBH7zHQX@kernel.org>
On Thu, Oct 29, 2026 at 04:33:10PM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 29, 2026 at 04:07:05PM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > keygcbench results without the patch:
> >
> > unused: min=3016.754 avg=11859.097 max=28667.645 var=141391574.712
> > expired: min=0.015 avg=12758.165 max=21516.237 var=85158284.646
> > combined: min=0.015 avg=12308.631 max=28667.645 var=113477010.596
> >
> > keygcbench results with the patch:
> >
> > unused: min=0.225 avg=13.991 max=853.100 var=858.700
> > expired: min=0.016 avg=30.442 max=2791.695 var=14187.539
> > combined: min=0.016 avg=19.249 max=2791.695 var=5177.436
>
> I personally would optimize all-in for variance because:
>
> 1. It is insignificant drawback for any practical keyring workload
> if the total time increases slightly.
> 2. Latency peaks are a signifiant drawback for any possible latency
> sensitive workload running in the system.
>
> What I'm doing now is to find sweet spot chunk size below 1024 where
> variances reaches its lowest value.
>
> The latency part makes this change more valuable than focusing on
> only on the regression itself.
The best block size 1 and this was actually my guess. Just in case I ran
the benchmark three times for each 11 block sizes.
It is simple refactor to do. I simply substitute KEY_GC_BLOCK_SIZE with
1 and carefully refactor the constant out.
I think that converging to the correct solution through this route was
worth of the additional trouble because at least now properly sanity
checked.
Br, Jarkko
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-10-29 16:45 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-10-29 14:07 [PATCH v4] KEYS: key_garbage_collector(): process in chunks Jarkko Sakkinen
2026-10-29 14:33 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2026-10-29 16:45 ` Jarkko Sakkinen [this message]
2026-10-29 16:50 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
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=auN4G05kSzZepLE3@kernel.org \
--to=jarkko@kernel.org \
--cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
--cc=dmitry.kasatkin@gmail.com \
--cc=ebiggers@kernel.org \
--cc=eric.snowberg@oracle.com \
--cc=jmorris@namei.org \
--cc=keyrings@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=paul@paul-moore.com \
--cc=roberto.sassu@huawei.com \
--cc=serge@hallyn.com \
--cc=syzbot+c15de43f1e7fffbb7b9b@syzkaller.appspotmail.com \
--cc=zohar@linux.ibm.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