* Serge E. Hallyn (hallyn@private) wrote: > I didn't include performance numbers this time because 2.6.9 by > itself performs significantly worse than the 2.6.8.1 I used for > the other approach. However, a previous prototype which I tested Hrm, that's no good. Does that regression improve on -current? > under 2.6.8.1 came out a little better than the chaining approach, > and worse than the builtin approach. > > I'm working on the improved chaining design which Stephen pointed > out I wasn't doing last time. Perhaps actually embedding the > list_head into the LSM security structures will bring its performance > above the hashing approach. I missed that the last chaining one wasn't this way. Perhaps that's where the overhead came from. It should be faster, esp for a short list. The memory footprint should be one extra pointer per kernel object (or none if hlist), and 2 pointers plus id per security blob. thanks, -chris -- Linux Security Modules http://lsm.immunix.org http://lsm.bkbits.net
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Wed Oct 27 2004 - 11:40:10 PDT