Re: [RFC] [PATCH] Replace security fields with hashtable

From: Serge E. Hallyn (hallyn@private)
Date: Wed Oct 27 2004 - 13:06:43 PDT

Previous message: Chris Wright: "Re: [RFC] [PATCH] Replace security fields with hashtable"
In reply to: Chris Wright: "Re: [RFC] [PATCH] Replace security fields with hashtable"
Next in thread: Mimi Zohar: "Re: [RFC] [PATCH] Replace security fields with hashtable"
Next in thread: Chris Wright: "Re: [RFC] [PATCH] Replace security fields with hashtable"
Next in thread: Stephen Smalley: "Re: [RFC] [PATCH] Replace security fields with hashtable"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

> * 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?

I've read that the next -mm fixed that, but I haven't had a chance to
test.  I'll try testing tomorrow's snapshot.  (Unfortunately I've been
testing with unixbench, which takes nearly an hour per test-run  :)

-serge

Previous message: Chris Wright: "Re: [RFC] [PATCH] Replace security fields with hashtable"
In reply to: Chris Wright: "Re: [RFC] [PATCH] Replace security fields with hashtable"
Next in thread: Mimi Zohar: "Re: [RFC] [PATCH] Replace security fields with hashtable"
Next in thread: Chris Wright: "Re: [RFC] [PATCH] Replace security fields with hashtable"
Next in thread: Stephen Smalley: "Re: [RFC] [PATCH] Replace security fields with hashtable"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Wed Oct 27 2004 - 13:07:08 PDT