linux-kernel - Re: lmbench lat_mmap slowdown with CONFIG

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: <20090120144109.GK19505@wotan.suse.de>
Date:	Tue, 20 Jan 2009 15:41:09 +0100
From:	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc:	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, hpa@...or.com,
	jeremy@...source.com, chrisw@...s-sol.org, zach@...are.com,
	rusty@...tcorp.com.au, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: lmbench lat_mmap slowdown with CONFIG_PARAVIRT

On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 03:17:35PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> * Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de> wrote:
> > 
> > BTW. the lmbench test I run directly (it's called lat_mmap.c, and gets 
> > compiled into a standalone lat_mmap exec by the standard lmbench build).
> 
> doesnt that include an indeterminate number of gettimeofday() based 
> calibration calls? That would make it harder to measure its total costs in 
> a comparative way.

Hmm... yes probably for really detailed profile comparisons or
other external measurements it would need modification.
--
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/