diff options
| author | Dmitry Kasatkin <dmitry.kasatkin@intel.com> | 2012-02-08 23:15:42 +0400 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> | 2012-09-07 22:57:46 +0400 |
| commit | a10bf26b2f53242836e9362c6c9c857b627b82a9 (patch) | |
| tree | 98c7b83684f1df42571013af4c0572c7eeea8e76 /security | |
| parent | bf2276d10ce58ff44ab8857266a6718024496af6 (diff) | |
| download | linux-a10bf26b2f53242836e9362c6c9c857b627b82a9.tar.xz | |
ima: replace iint spinblock with rwlock/read_lock
For performance, replace the iint spinlock with rwlock/read_lock.
Eric Paris questioned this change, from spinlocks to rwlocks, saying
"rwlocks have been shown to actually be slower on multi processor
systems in a number of cases due to the cache line bouncing required."
Based on performance measurements compiling the kernel on a cold
boot with multiple jobs with/without this patch, Dmitry Kasatkin
and I found that rwlocks performed better than spinlocks, but very
insignificantly. For example with total compilation time around 6
minutes, with rwlocks time was 1 - 3 seconds shorter... but always
like that.
Changelog v2:
- new patch taken from the 'allocating iint improvements' patch
Signed-off-by: Dmitry Kasatkin <dmitry.kasatkin@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Mimi Zohar <zohar@us.ibm.com>
Diffstat (limited to 'security')
| -rw-r--r-- | security/integrity/iint.c | 16 |
1 files changed, 7 insertions, 9 deletions
diff --git a/security/integrity/iint.c b/security/integrity/iint.c index c91a436e13ac..d82a5a13d855 100644 --- a/security/integrity/iint.c +++ b/security/integrity/iint.c @@ -22,7 +22,7 @@ #include "integrity.h" static struct rb_root integrity_iint_tree = RB_ROOT; -static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(integrity_iint_lock); +static DEFINE_RWLOCK(integrity_iint_lock); static struct kmem_cache *iint_cache __read_mostly; int iint_initialized; @@ -35,8 +35,6 @@ static struct integrity_iint_cache *__integrity_iint_find(struct inode *inode) struct integrity_iint_cache *iint; struct rb_node *n = integrity_iint_tree.rb_node; - assert_spin_locked(&integrity_iint_lock); - while (n) { iint = rb_entry(n, struct integrity_iint_cache, rb_node); @@ -63,9 +61,9 @@ struct integrity_iint_cache *integrity_iint_find(struct inode *inode) if (!IS_IMA(inode)) return NULL; - spin_lock(&integrity_iint_lock); + read_lock(&integrity_iint_lock); iint = __integrity_iint_find(inode); - spin_unlock(&integrity_iint_lock); + read_unlock(&integrity_iint_lock); return iint; } @@ -100,7 +98,7 @@ struct integrity_iint_cache *integrity_inode_get(struct inode *inode) if (!iint) return NULL; - spin_lock(&integrity_iint_lock); + write_lock(&integrity_iint_lock); p = &integrity_iint_tree.rb_node; while (*p) { @@ -119,7 +117,7 @@ struct integrity_iint_cache *integrity_inode_get(struct inode *inode) rb_link_node(node, parent, p); rb_insert_color(node, &integrity_iint_tree); - spin_unlock(&integrity_iint_lock); + write_unlock(&integrity_iint_lock); return iint; } @@ -136,10 +134,10 @@ void integrity_inode_free(struct inode *inode) if (!IS_IMA(inode)) return; - spin_lock(&integrity_iint_lock); + write_lock(&integrity_iint_lock); iint = __integrity_iint_find(inode); rb_erase(&iint->rb_node, &integrity_iint_tree); - spin_unlock(&integrity_iint_lock); + write_unlock(&integrity_iint_lock); iint_free(iint); } |