Re: Latest release of stacker

From: Serge Hallyn (serue@private)
Date: Thu Mar 10 2005 - 09:16:33 PST

On Thu, 2005-03-10 at 11:48 -0500, Stephen Smalley wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-03-09 at 09:58 -0600, Serge Hallyn wrote:
> > The modified stacker creates a list_head for each LSM hook and adds a
> > module's hook to the list only if it is defined.  This way we don't have
> > to check for (module->operation) for each module on each hook call.
> > This results in performance on macrobenchmarks (kernel compile) which
> > actually seems on par with or slightly better than non-stacker.  Lmbench
> > results (attached) for some reason do not back this up.  I can't explain
> > those results.  Might just try a whole new set of lmbench tests, in case
> > I left some service enabled.
> Some of the data seems to be missing, or I'm blind.  hlist and stack are
> missing their UDP data, while nostack is missing TCP conn data.

Yes, I don't know what happened with those...  I don't seem to have good
luck with lmbench.  On my rel4/ppc64 system the scripts failed

> Which results did you view as especially problematic?  It would help to
> have a summary table comparing the means of the different
> configurations.

Well, the shproc in particular, as well as fork proc.

> In the past, I think I've run a lot of trials of lmbench to reduce
> noise, not sure you are running enough here.

How many would you recommend?  Would 10 be enough?  I suppose I should
just be calculating 95%CI as a guide.

I am reinstalling rel4 (or should I be using fedora instead?) on a 4-cpu
ppc64 on ext2 for benchmarking.  The previous results were done on my
main desktop. which kind of put a stop to other work :)

Serge Hallyn <serue@private>

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Thu Mar 10 2005 - 09:16:15 PST