From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S267504AbUHJQJF (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Aug 2004 12:09:05 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S267493AbUHJQGf (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Aug 2004 12:06:35 -0400 Received: from the-village.bc.nu ([81.2.110.252]:8653 "EHLO localhost.localdomain") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S267503AbUHJQFK (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Aug 2004 12:05:10 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH] [LSM] Rework LSM hooks From: Alan Cox To: James Morris Cc: Kurt Garloff , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Chris Wright , Stephen Smalley , Greg KH In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <1092150120.16939.25.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.6 (1.4.6-2) Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 16:02:01 +0100 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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