[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAAmzW4PN4wcPWbjf=Hws2qN_eZC1HCmn-gQC9_DB5ek5+bNksQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 20 May 2016 11:15:58 +0900
From: Joonsoo Kim <js1304@...il.com>
To: Thomas Garnier <thgarnie@...gle.com>
Cc: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Pranith Kumar <bobby.prani@...il.com>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
David Woodhouse <David.Woodhouse@...el.com>,
Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Greg Thelen <gthelen@...gle.com>,
kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: [RFC v1 2/2] mm: SLUB Freelist randomization
2016-05-20 5:20 GMT+09:00 Thomas Garnier <thgarnie@...gle.com>:
> I ran the test given by Joonsoo and it gave me these minimum cycles
> per size across 20 usage:
I can't understand what you did here. Maybe, it's due to my poor Engling.
Please explain more. You did single thread test? Why minimum cycles
rather than average?
> size,before,after
> 8,63.00,64.50 (102.38%)
> 16,64.50,65.00 (100.78%)
> 32,65.00,65.00 (100.00%)
> 64,66.00,65.00 (98.48%)
> 128,66.00,65.00 (98.48%)
> 256,64.00,64.00 (100.00%)
> 512,65.00,66.00 (101.54%)
> 1024,68.00,64.00 (94.12%)
> 2048,66.00,65.00 (98.48%)
> 4096,66.00,66.00 (100.00%)
It looks like performance of all size classes are the same?
> I assume the difference is bigger if you don't have RDRAND support.
What does RDRAND means? Kconfig? How can I check if I have RDRAND?
> Christoph, Joonsoo: Do you think it would be valuable to add a CONFIG
> to disable additional randomization per new page? It will remove
> additional entropy but increase performance for machines without arch
> specific randomization instructions.
I don't think that it deserve another CONFIG. If performance is a matter,
I think that removing additional entropy is better until it is proved that
entropy is a problem.
Thanks.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists