Re: [PATCH] [LSM] Rework LSM hooks

[Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>]

On Maw, 2004-08-10 at 15:16, James Morris wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Aug 2004, Kurt Garloff wrote:
> 
> > * Even with selinux=0 and capability loaded, the kernel takes a 
> >   few percents in networking benchmarks (measured by HP on ia64); 
> >   this is caused by the slowliness of indirect jumps on ia64.
> 
> Is this just an ia64 issue?  If so, then perhaps we should look at only
> penalising ia64?  Otherwise, loading an LSM module is going to cause
> expensive false unlikely() on _every_ LSM hook.

I see this on x86-32 to an extent. Its quite visible with gigabit as
you'd expect. ia64 ought to be less affected providing the compiler is
doing the right things with the unconditional jumps.


Alan