mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>
To: Deepa Dinamani <deepa.kernel@gmail.com>
Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>, Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>,
	Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@redhat.com>, Tony Jones <tonyj@suse.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] audit: Reduce overhead using a coarse clock
Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2017 17:53:08 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170704165308.ls4i5qa4sz6cpn5x@techsingularity.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CABeXuvojLcAzBXLjcdtt8Dii_mUqO=Kc5iJzQOKzP3aU8p5ApA@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Jul 04, 2017 at 09:23:55AM -0700, Deepa Dinamani wrote:
> > The patch in question has no explanation as to why a fully-accurate timestamp
> > is required and is likely an oversight.  Using a coarser, but monotically
> > increasing, timestamp the overhead can be eliminated.
> 
> You are right. I was trying to use ktime_get* functions preferably.
> I was aware that current_kernel_time64() could also be used if lesser
> granularity was preferred and that it was faster.
> I forgot to note that in the commit text.
> 

Given the severe overhead (roughly 10% to redis, sysbench-threads), would
you be willing to accept the coarser granularity to avoid audit taking
a major performance hit? I didn't mention it in my own changelog but a
similar 10% hit is also visible in the will-it-scale microbenchmarks that
focus on system calls so it's a fairly broad impact.

-- 
Mel Gorman
SUSE Labs

  reply	other threads:[~2017-07-04 16:53 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-07-04 12:11 Mel Gorman
2017-07-04 16:23 ` Deepa Dinamani
2017-07-04 16:53   ` Mel Gorman [this message]
2017-07-04 19:20 ` Arnd Bergmann
2017-07-04 19:41   ` Deepa Dinamani
2017-07-06 20:25     ` Paul Moore
2017-07-06 23:31       ` Mel Gorman
2017-07-10 14:43       ` Richard Guy Briggs

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20170704165308.ls4i5qa4sz6cpn5x@techsingularity.net \
    --to=mgorman@techsingularity.net \
    --cc=arnd@arndb.de \
    --cc=deepa.kernel@gmail.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=paul@paul-moore.com \
    --cc=rgb@redhat.com \
    --cc=tonyj@suse.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox

all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®