[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CABqSeAR8j=ALk5=Y=D4ivVU8m3DC8XgZp74FyAaeErS_TL4FRQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2020 20:35:55 -0500
From: YiFei Zhu <zhuyifei1999@...il.com>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc: Linux Containers <containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
YiFei Zhu <yifeifz2@...inois.edu>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Aleksa Sarai <cyphar@...har.com>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Dimitrios Skarlatos <dskarlat@...cmu.edu>,
Giuseppe Scrivano <gscrivan@...hat.com>,
Hubertus Franke <frankeh@...ibm.com>,
Jack Chen <jianyan2@...inois.edu>,
Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
Josep Torrellas <torrella@...inois.edu>,
Tianyin Xu <tyxu@...inois.edu>,
Tobin Feldman-Fitzthum <tobin@....com>,
Tycho Andersen <tycho@...ho.pizza>,
Valentin Rothberg <vrothber@...hat.com>,
Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 seccomp 5/6] selftests/seccomp: Compare bitmap vs
filter overhead
On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 6:47 PM Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote:
> BTW, did this benchmark tool's results match your expectations from what
> you saw with your RFC? (I assume it helped since you've included in
> here.)
Yes, I updated the commit message with the benchmarks of this patch
series. Though, given that I'm running in a qemu-kvm on my laptop that
has a lot of stuffs running on it (and with the cursed ThinkPad T480
CPU throttling), I had to throw much more syscalls at it to pass the
"approximately equals" expectation... though no idea about what's
going on with 732 vs 737.
Or if you mean if I expected these results, yes.
YiFei Zhu
Powered by blists - more mailing lists