[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAEXv5_jjqZkLEsPY_B6++pf8EeVY=2YkvRJc+rGvEFSaXdRX=A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2016 18:13:29 -0400
From: David Windsor <dwindsor@...il.com>
To: kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com
Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, "Reshetova, Elena" <elena.reshetova@...el.com>,
Hans Liljestrand <ishkamiel@...il.com>
Subject: HARDENED_ATOMIC benchmarks
Hi,
The following are the results of benchmarking HARDENED_ATOMIC. The
benchmarks performed were dbench and a timed Linux kernel compile using the
Phoronix test suite [1] on a Linux VirtualBox guest.
dbench was chosen specifically to gauge the performance penalty involved in
heavy usage of struct file->f_count, as this is one of the hottest users of
atomic_t/atomic_long_t.
A small performance degradation was noticeable with HARDENED_ATOMIC
enabled. The numbers are such that I'm unsure if this was due to the
feature itself or to random line noise. What follows is a summary of the
benchmark results, then the results themselves.
[1] http://www.phoronix-test-suite.com/
HARDENED_ATOMIC Benchmarking Summary
===================================
dbench
======
CONFIG_HARDENED_ATOMIC not set: 109.79 MB/s
CONFIG_HARDENED_ATOMIC set: 106.75 MB/s
2.8% slowdown
Timed Linux kernel compile
=====================
CONFIG_HARDENED_ATOMIC not set: 504.12 seconds
CONFIG_HARDENED_ATOMIC set: 504.81 seconds
0.01% slowdown
HARDENED_ATOMIC Benchmark Results
===============================
dbench
======
HARDENED_ATOMIC disabled:
dbenchDbench 4.0:
pts/dbench-1.0.0 [Client Count: 12]
Test 1 of 1
Estimated Trial Run Count: 3
Estimated Time To Completion: 1 Hour, 25 Minutes
Started Run 1 @ 08:48:01
Started Run 2 @ 09:00:04
Started Run 3 @ 09:12:07 [Std. Dev: 1.39%]
Test Results:
109.613
108.351
111.393
Average: 109.79 MB/s
HARDENED_ATOMIC enabled:
Dbench 4.0:
pts/dbench-1.0.0 [Client Count: 12]
Test 1 of 1
Estimated Trial Run Count: 3
Estimated Time To Completion: 1 Hour, 28 Minutes
Started Run 1 @ 06:48:33
Started Run 2 @ 07:00:37
Started Run 3 @ 07:12:40 [Std. Dev: 12.66%]
Started Run 4 @ 07:24:43 [Std. Dev: 10.94%]
Started Run 5 @ 07:36:46 [Std. Dev: 9.98%]
Started Run 6 @ 07:48:50 [Std. Dev: 9.30%]
Test Results:
87.0504
106.451
111.377
110.239
112.226
113.152
Average: 106.75 MB/s
Timed Linux Kernel Compile
======================
HARDENED_ATOMIC disabled:
Timed Linux Kernel Compilation 4.3:
pts/build-linux-kernel-1.6.0
Test 4 of 4
Estimated Trial Run Count: 3
Estimated Time To Completion: 55 Minutes
Estimated Trial Run Count: 3
Estimated Time To Completion: 55 Minutes
Running Pre-Test Script @ 02:39:33
Started Run 1 @ 02:40:06
Running Interim Test Script @ 02:48:39
Started Run 2 @ 02:48:45
Running Interim Test Script @ 02:57:07
Started Run 3 @ 02:57:14 [Std. Dev: 0.84%]
Running Post-Test Script @ 03:05:35
Test Results:
509.00912308693
501.88456201553
501.46281981468
Average: 504.12 Seconds
HARDENED_ATOMIC enabled:
Timed Linux Kernel Compilation 4.3:
pts/build-linux-kernel-1.6.0
Test 4 of 4
Estimated Trial Run Count: 3
Estimated Time To Completion: 45 Minutes
Running Pre-Test Script @ 05:26:55
Started Run 1 @ 05:27:30
Running Interim Test Script @ 05:36:01
Started Run 2 @ 05:36:08
Running Interim Test Script @ 05:44:32
Started Run 3 @ 05:44:38 [Std. Dev: 0.36%]
Running Post-Test Script @ 05:53:02
Test Results:
506.84527802467
504.29637002945
503.30119299889
Average: 504.81 Seconds
Content of type "text/html" skipped
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
