Watch Performance

[Steve Grubb]

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