On 06/08/2013 10:29 AM, Steve Grubb wrote: > On Saturday, June 08, 2013 10:13:45 AM Doug Ledford wrote: >> Yes, but none of these results show the .12s time that your first >> noatime test run showed in your original post. If you are now saying >> that atime is faster than noatime by about .005 to .010s, then these >> results seem to show that. But your original post was from .019 to .12, >> or a difference of .10+s. That was cache load time, not just the >> syscall difference. > > I chalk that up to the audit system. The audit system tries real hard to stay > out of the way since the vast majority of syscalls are not interesting. But if > you trigger an event, it has to get recorded in gory detail and that takes > time. (The first run did trigger 5000 audit events, the others didn't.) This is > another reason (but not the main reason) we need to try to avoid triggering > events in a normally operating machine. OK, that makes more sense. So the audit events on a 5000 loop take up the .10 seconds in time difference. Fine, I'll grant that this legitimately belongs in the time difference then. -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
