Re: [PATCH] audit: Reduce overhead using a coarse clock

2017-07-10 Thread Richard Guy Briggs
On 2017-07-06 16:25, Paul Moore wrote: > On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 3:41 PM, Deepa Dinamani wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 12:20 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > >> On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 2:11 PM, Mel Gorman > >> wrote: > >>> > >>>

Re: [PATCH] audit: Reduce overhead using a coarse clock

2017-07-10 Thread Richard Guy Briggs
On 2017-07-06 16:25, Paul Moore wrote: > On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 3:41 PM, Deepa Dinamani wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 12:20 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > >> On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 2:11 PM, Mel Gorman > >> wrote: > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman > >> > >> Acked-by: Arnd Bergmann > > > >

Re: [PATCH] audit: Reduce overhead using a coarse clock

2017-07-06 Thread Mel Gorman
On Thu, Jul 06, 2017 at 04:25:48PM -0400, Paul Moore wrote: > On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 3:41 PM, Deepa Dinamani wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 12:20 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > >> On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 2:11 PM, Mel Gorman > >>

Re: [PATCH] audit: Reduce overhead using a coarse clock

2017-07-06 Thread Mel Gorman
On Thu, Jul 06, 2017 at 04:25:48PM -0400, Paul Moore wrote: > On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 3:41 PM, Deepa Dinamani wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 12:20 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > >> On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 2:11 PM, Mel Gorman > >> wrote: > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman > >> > >> Acked-by:

Re: [PATCH] audit: Reduce overhead using a coarse clock

2017-07-06 Thread Paul Moore
On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 3:41 PM, Deepa Dinamani wrote: > On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 12:20 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: >> On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 2:11 PM, Mel Gorman >> wrote: >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman

Re: [PATCH] audit: Reduce overhead using a coarse clock

2017-07-06 Thread Paul Moore
On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 3:41 PM, Deepa Dinamani wrote: > On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 12:20 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: >> On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 2:11 PM, Mel Gorman >> wrote: >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman >> >> Acked-by: Arnd Bergmann > > Acked-by: Deepa Dinamani > > As already Arnd pointed out,

Re: [PATCH] audit: Reduce overhead using a coarse clock

2017-07-04 Thread Deepa Dinamani
On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 12:20 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 2:11 PM, Mel Gorman > wrote: >> >> Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman > > Acked-by: Arnd Bergmann Acked-by: Deepa Dinamani

Re: [PATCH] audit: Reduce overhead using a coarse clock

2017-07-04 Thread Deepa Dinamani
On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 12:20 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 2:11 PM, Mel Gorman > wrote: >> >> Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman > > Acked-by: Arnd Bergmann Acked-by: Deepa Dinamani As already Arnd pointed out, your patch should be fine as that is how it was before my patch.

Re: [PATCH] audit: Reduce overhead using a coarse clock

2017-07-04 Thread Arnd Bergmann
On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 2:11 PM, Mel Gorman wrote: > > Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman Acked-by: Arnd Bergmann

Re: [PATCH] audit: Reduce overhead using a coarse clock

2017-07-04 Thread Arnd Bergmann
On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 2:11 PM, Mel Gorman wrote: > > Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman Acked-by: Arnd Bergmann

Re: [PATCH] audit: Reduce overhead using a coarse clock

2017-07-04 Thread Mel Gorman
On Tue, Jul 04, 2017 at 09:23:55AM -0700, Deepa Dinamani wrote: > > The patch in question has no explanation as to why a fully-accurate > > timestamp > > is required and is likely an oversight. Using a coarser, but monotically > > increasing, timestamp the overhead can be eliminated. > > You

Re: [PATCH] audit: Reduce overhead using a coarse clock

2017-07-04 Thread Mel Gorman
On Tue, Jul 04, 2017 at 09:23:55AM -0700, Deepa Dinamani wrote: > > The patch in question has no explanation as to why a fully-accurate > > timestamp > > is required and is likely an oversight. Using a coarser, but monotically > > increasing, timestamp the overhead can be eliminated. > > You

Re: [PATCH] audit: Reduce overhead using a coarse clock

2017-07-04 Thread Deepa Dinamani
> The patch in question has no explanation as to why a fully-accurate timestamp > is required and is likely an oversight. Using a coarser, but monotically > increasing, timestamp the overhead can be eliminated. You are right. I was trying to use ktime_get* functions preferably. I was aware that

Re: [PATCH] audit: Reduce overhead using a coarse clock

2017-07-04 Thread Deepa Dinamani
> The patch in question has no explanation as to why a fully-accurate timestamp > is required and is likely an oversight. Using a coarser, but monotically > increasing, timestamp the overhead can be eliminated. You are right. I was trying to use ktime_get* functions preferably. I was aware that

[PATCH] audit: Reduce overhead using a coarse clock

2017-07-04 Thread Mel Gorman
Commit 2115bb250f26 ("audit: Use timespec64 to represent audit timestamps") noted that audit timestamps were not y2038 safe and used a 64-bit timestamp. In itself, this makes sense but the conversion was from CURRENT_TIME to ktime_get_real_ts64() which is a heavier call to record an accurate

[PATCH] audit: Reduce overhead using a coarse clock

2017-07-04 Thread Mel Gorman
Commit 2115bb250f26 ("audit: Use timespec64 to represent audit timestamps") noted that audit timestamps were not y2038 safe and used a 64-bit timestamp. In itself, this makes sense but the conversion was from CURRENT_TIME to ktime_get_real_ts64() which is a heavier call to record an accurate