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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2008 11:45:35 +0100 From: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu> To: salikhmetov@...il.com CC: miklos@...redi.hu, linux-mm@...ck.org, jakob@...hought.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, valdis.kletnieks@...edu, riel@...hat.com, ksm@...dk, staubach@...hat.com, jesper.juhl@...il.com, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, protasnb@...il.com, r.e.wolff@...wizard.nl, hidave.darkstar@...il.com, hch@...radead.org Subject: Re: [PATCH -v6 0/2] Fixing the issue with memory-mapped file times > 2008/1/18, Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>: > > > 4. Performance test was done using the program available from the > > > following link: > > > > > > http://bugzilla.kernel.org/attachment.cgi?id=14493 > > > > > > Result: the impact of the changes was negligible for files of a few > > > hundred megabytes. > > > > Could you also test with ext4 and post some numbers? Afaik, ext4 uses > > nanosecond timestamps, so the time updating code would be exercised > > more during the page faults. > > > > What about performance impact on msync(MS_ASYNC)? Could you please do > > some measurment of that as well? > > Did a quick test on an ext4 partition. This is how it looks like: Thanks for running these tests. I was more interested in the slowdown on ext4 (checked with the above mentioned program). Can you do such a test as well, and post resulting times with and without the patch? > Table 1. Reference platforms. > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > | | HP-UX/PA-RISC | HP-UX/Itanium | FreeBSD | > ------------------------------------------------------------ > | First run | 263405 usec | 202283 usec | 90 SECONDS | > ------------------------------------------------------------ > | Second run | 262253 usec | 172837 usec | 90 SECONDS | > ------------------------------------------------------------ > | Third run | 238465 usec | 238465 usec | 90 SECONDS | > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > It looks like FreeBSD is a clear outsider here. Note that FreeBSD > showed an almost liner depencence of the time spent in the > msync(MS_ASYNC) call on the file size. > > Table 2. The Qemu system. File size is 512M. > > --------------------------------------------------- > | | Before the patch | After the patch | > --------------------------------------------------- > | First run | 35 usec | 5852 usec | > --------------------------------------------------- > | Second run | 35 usec | 4444 usec | > --------------------------------------------------- > | Third run | 35 usec | 6330 usec | > --------------------------------------------------- Interesting. Thanks, Miklos -- 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