From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751246AbWDTUQP (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 Apr 2006 16:16:15 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751245AbWDTUQO (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 Apr 2006 16:16:14 -0400 Received: from e31.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.149]:49073 "EHLO e31.co.us.ibm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751246AbWDTUQN (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 Apr 2006 16:16:13 -0400 Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2006 15:16:08 -0500 From: "Serge E. Hallyn" To: Tony Jones Cc: "Serge E. Hallyn" , Stephen Smalley , linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, chrisw@sous-sol.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 11/11] security: AppArmor - Export namespace semaphore Message-ID: <20060420201608.GA27183@sergelap.austin.ibm.com> References: <20060419174905.29149.67649.sendpatchset@ermintrude.int.wirex.com> <20060419175034.29149.94306.sendpatchset@ermintrude.int.wirex.com> <1145536742.16456.35.camel@moss-spartans.epoch.ncsc.mil> <20060420124647.GD18604@sergelap.austin.ibm.com> <1145534735.3313.3.camel@moss-spartans.epoch.ncsc.mil> <20060420132128.GG18604@sergelap.austin.ibm.com> <20060420194503.GA1425@suse.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20060420194503.GA1425@suse.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Quoting Tony Jones (tonyj@suse.de): > On Thu, Apr 20, 2006 at 08:21:28AM -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote: > > > Tony, do you have any performance measurements? Both for unconfined and > > confined apps? Presumably unconfined processes should have 0 performance > > hit, right? > > Hi Serge. > > We have lmbench results. We had issues getting reproducability out of dbench > but need to look at it some more. The lmbench figures we presently have are > from the old code (reader writer lock). Results were good but we recently > converted to rcu for the reader dominated rw locks. > > I'm not sure there is "0 performance hit for unconfined" as you have to check > for them being unconfined :) but it's low. > > If you have other benchmarks we are open to suggestions. What has been used > to benchmark SELinux? I typically use dbench, reaim, tbench, and kernbench, running each 20 times. > Anyways, we need to regenerate the results, we'll try and post in the next > couple days. ok? Cool, thanks. -serge