On 09/07/2018 09:37 AM, John Johansen wrote:
> hey Tony,
>
> thanks for the patch, I am curious did you're investigation look
> into what parts of DEFINE_AUDIT_SK are causing the issue?
Hi JJ.
Attached are the perf annotations for DEFINE_AUDIT_SK (percentages are relative
to the fn).
Our
On 09/07/2018 09:37 AM, John Johansen wrote:
> hey Tony,
>
> thanks for the patch, I am curious did you're investigation look
> into what parts of DEFINE_AUDIT_SK are causing the issue?
Hi JJ.
Attached are the perf annotations for DEFINE_AUDIT_SK (percentages are relative
to the fn).
Our
On 09/06/2018 09:33 PM, Tony Jones wrote:
> The netperf benchmark shows a 5.73% reduction in throughput for
> small (64 byte) transfers by unconfined tasks.
>
> DEFINE_AUDIT_SK() in aa_label_sk_perm() should not be performed
> unconditionally, rather only when the label is confined.
>
>
On 09/06/2018 09:33 PM, Tony Jones wrote:
> The netperf benchmark shows a 5.73% reduction in throughput for
> small (64 byte) transfers by unconfined tasks.
>
> DEFINE_AUDIT_SK() in aa_label_sk_perm() should not be performed
> unconditionally, rather only when the label is confined.
>
>
The netperf benchmark shows a 5.73% reduction in throughput for
small (64 byte) transfers by unconfined tasks.
DEFINE_AUDIT_SK() in aa_label_sk_perm() should not be performed
unconditionally, rather only when the label is confined.
netperf-tcp
56974a6fc^
The netperf benchmark shows a 5.73% reduction in throughput for
small (64 byte) transfers by unconfined tasks.
DEFINE_AUDIT_SK() in aa_label_sk_perm() should not be performed
unconditionally, rather only when the label is confined.
netperf-tcp
56974a6fc^
6 matches
Mail list logo
