linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/3] i_ino uniqueness: alternate approach -- hash the inodes

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

Message-ID: <45B76BAC.4040408@redhat.com>
Date:	Wed, 24 Jan 2007 09:22:36 -0500
From:	Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>
CC:	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] i_ino uniqueness: alternate approach -- hash the
 inodes

Andrew Morton wrote:
> 
> What is the additional overhead, expressed in relative terms?  ie: as a percentage?

Short answer: ~3-4% in a not very scientific test.

Long answer: I timed 3 different runs of a program that created and then closed 
a pipe 10 million times on a patched and unpatched kernel. I then added up the
"system" times for each and divided them:

unpatched:
sys     1m53.959s
sys     1m56.083s
sys     1m48.055s

patched:
sys     1m56.899s
sys     1m57.027s
sys     1m57.031s

The result was 1.03803642150033866020.

-- Jeff
-
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/