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 -- redhat-lspp mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-lspp
