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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20071007193256.GA18558@elte.hu> Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2007 21:32:56 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> To: "Alan D. Brunelle" <Alan.Brunelle@...com> Cc: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, btrace <linux-btrace@...r.kernel.org>, Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> Subject: Re: Linux Kernel Markers - performance characterization with large IO load on large-ish system * Alan D. Brunelle <Alan.Brunelle@...com> wrote: > o All kernels start off with Linux 2.6.23-rc6 + 2.6.23-rc6-mm1 > > o '- bt cfg' or '+ bt cfg' means a kernel without or with blktrace > configured respectively. > > o '- markers' or '+ markers' means a kernel without or with the > 11-patch marker series respectively. > > 38 runs without blk traces being captured (dropped hi/lo value from 40 runs) > > Kernel Options Min val Avg val Max val Std Dev > ------------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- > - markers - bt cfg 15.349127 16.169459 16.372980 0.184417 > + markers - bt cfg 15.280382 16.202398 16.409257 0.191861 > > - markers + bt cfg 14.464366 14.754347 16.052306 0.463665 > + markers + bt cfg 14.421765 14.644406 15.690871 0.233885 actually, the pure marker overhead seems to be a regression: > - markers - bt cfg 15.349127 16.169459 16.372980 0.184417 > + markers - bt cfg 15.280382 16.202398 16.409257 0.191861 why isnt the marker near zero-cost as it should be? (as long as they are enabled but are not in actual use) 2% increase is _ALOT_. That's the whole point of good probes: they do not slow down the normal kernel. _Worst case_ it should be at most a few instructions overhead but that does not explain the ~2% wall-clock time regression you measured here. So there's something wrong going on - either markers have unacceptably high cost, or the measurement is not valid. Ingo - 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists