linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] dio: lock refcount operations

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 01 Nov 2006 17:51:20 -0800
From:	Zach Brown <zach.brown@...cle.com>
To:	Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com>
CC:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] dio: lock refcount operations

> zach.brown> that path before the recent dio completion patch set.  We
> zach.brown> shouldn't expect significant performance regression from
> zach.brown> returning to the behaviour that existed before the completion
> zach.brown> clean up work. 
> 
> Are you going to quantify this at all?  I think we should.

I spotted some free time on an old dual athlon and got an initial look
at the cpu cost of the dio cleanup patches currently in -mm.

I ran two aio-stress instances doing O_DIRECT 64k sequential reads and
writes to an existing 1gig file on ext3 on an old pata drive.  I ran a
pair of cycle soakers measuring cpu load every second.  After trimming
out the 8 highest and lowest samples the remaining samples were
averaged.  I did this three times against 2.6.19-rc4-mm1 before and
after applying the dio-* patches.

before: 5.02% 5.23% 5.27%
after:  5.27% 5.33% 5.32%

So I'm not *gravely* concerned that we've regressed, but it'd be nice to
measure the impact of the dio-* patches on more capable hardware.

- z
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/