Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759572Ab1EMQa0 (ORCPT ); Fri, 13 May 2011 12:30:26 -0400 Received: from smtp1.linux-foundation.org ([140.211.169.13]:42403 "EHLO smtp1.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1759041Ab1EMQaX (ORCPT ); Fri, 13 May 2011 12:30:23 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <20110513025013.GA13209@mail.hallyn.com> <20110513040214.GA25270@mail.hallyn.com> <20110513131904.GA2519@mail.hallyn.com> From: Linus Torvalds Date: Fri, 13 May 2011 09:29:27 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: acl_permission_check: disgusting performance To: "Serge E. Hallyn" Cc: "Serge E. Hallyn" , "Eric W. Biederman" , Daniel Lezcano , David Howells , James Morris , Andrew Morton , Linux Kernel Mailing List , containers@lists.linux-foundation.org, Al Viro Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1176 Lines: 35 On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 9:16 AM, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > Looks ok to me. And generates good code for acl_permission_check > without CONFIG_USER_NS. > > I'll see how much that function drops on the kernel profiles.. Yup, looking good. For my "kernel make with no changes" workload, it dropped from 1.28% make [kernel.kallsyms] [k] acl_permission_check to 0.88% make [kernel.kallsyms] [k] acl_permission_check which is pretty much exactly the expected 30% drop from no longer having that expensive load of user_ns. Of course, that 30% improvement is just a 0.4% performance improvement in the big picture, but hey, almost half a percentage point on a real load from just one single function in the kernel is definitely worth doing. Do you want to carry this for 2.6.40, or should I just apply it? Linus -- 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/