Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 3 Jul 2005 12:00:07 -0700 | From | Tony Jones <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 3/3] Use conditional |
| |
On Sun, Jul 03, 2005 at 05:44:05PM +0200, Kurt Garloff wrote:
Agree with James, pls resend to linux-security-module@wirex.com.
The topic of replacing dummy (with capability) was discussed there last week, in the context of stacker, but a common solution for both cases would be needed.
Also, I was going to ask where 4/5 and 5/5 were :-)
If you are claiming a perf increase it would be nice to get an idea what these patches were even though you believe most of the gain was in patch #3.
Thanks
> Hi, > > this optimizes the case where no LSM is loaded and the (new) default > capablities is used. These are not called via indirect calls but > called as hardcoded calls and might thus be inlined; the price for > this is a conditional -- benchmarks done by hp showed this to be > beneficial (on ia64). > > Enjoy, > -- > Kurt Garloff, Director SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.
> From: Kurt Garloff <garloff@suse.de> > Subject: Replace indirect calls by a branch > References: SUSE40217, SUSE39439 > > In the LSM stub collection, rather do a branch than an indirect > call. Many of the functions called do only return 0 or do nothing > for the default (capability) case. > This is a fast-path optimization; a branch is faster than an > indirect call, even more so if correctly predicted. > This shows a >3% perf. increase in netperf -t TCP_RR benchmark on IA64. > (More exactly: The benchmark was taken with the next two patches > applied as well, but I attribute the main effect to this patch.) > > This is patch 3/5 of the LSM overhaul. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |