From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750973AbVHKVY2 (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Aug 2005 17:24:28 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750974AbVHKVY1 (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Aug 2005 17:24:27 -0400 Received: from e31.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.129]:7076 "EHLO e31.co.us.ibm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750877AbVHKVY1 (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Aug 2005 17:24:27 -0400 Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2005 16:22:09 -0500 From: serue@us.ibm.com To: James Morris Cc: serue@us.ibm.com, lkml , Chris Wright , Stephen Smalley , Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [PATCH] Stacker - single-use static slots Message-ID: <20050811212209.GB28004@serge.austin.ibm.com> References: <20050727181732.GA22483@serge.austin.ibm.com> <20050803164516.GB13691@serge.austin.ibm.com> <20050810144516.GA5796@serge.austin.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.8i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Quoting James Morris (jmorris@namei.org): > On Wed, 10 Aug 2005, serue@us.ibm.com wrote: > > > those annoying cache effects, I assume - 3 slots (the default) > > outperforms two slots, even though only one slot is being used. These > > tests were run on a 16-way power4+ system. I may try to re-run on some > > x86 hardware, though each run will probably take 24 hours. > > I've also run some benchmarks, comparing vanilla kernel with the > two stacker approaches. Results below. > > Results seem to be mixed, sometimes a bit better, sometimes a bit worse. > The macro benchmarks tend to show better figures for the static slot > model. > > Overall, it seems that SELinux could expect to take a 1-2% performance hit > with the stacker. Thanks, James. I guess I should do some profiling runs - I'm surprised there would be this much of a hit with the static slots. thanks, -serge