linux-kernel - Re: acl_permission_check: disgusting performance

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]

Message-ID: <20110513183012.GA31958@mail.hallyn.com>
Date:	Fri, 13 May 2011 13:30:12 -0500
From:	"Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	"Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>,
	"Serge E. Hallyn" <serge.hallyn@...onical.com>,
	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
	Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...e.fr>,
	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
	James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
	Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: acl_permission_check: disgusting performance

Quoting Linus Torvalds (torvalds@...ux-foundation.org):
> On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 9:16 AM, Linus Torvalds
> <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> >
> > Looks ok to me. And generates good code for acl_permission_check
> > without CONFIG_USER_NS.
> >
> > I'll see how much that function drops on the kernel profiles..
> 
> Yup, looking good.
> 
> For my "kernel make with no changes" workload, it dropped from
> 
>     1.28%           make  [kernel.kallsyms]             [k] acl_permission_check
> 
> to
> 
>      0.88%           make  [kernel.kallsyms]             [k]
> acl_permission_check
> 
> which is pretty much exactly the expected 30% drop from no longer
> having that expensive load of user_ns.
> 
> Of course, that 30% improvement is just a 0.4% performance improvement
> in the big picture, but hey, almost half a percentage point on a real
> load from just one single function in the kernel is definitely worth
> doing.

That's great, thanks for the help.

> Do you want to carry this for 2.6.40, or should I just apply it?

It makes no user-visible difference so I'd say just apply it.

thanks,
-serge
--
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/