linux-ext4 - Re: Revert Fix-EXT_MAX

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 14 Jul 2008 16:28:13 -0400
From:	Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>
To:	Holger Kiehl <Holger.Kiehl@....de>
Cc:	"Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Girish Shilamkar <Girish.Shilamkar@....com>,
	linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Revert  Fix-EXT_MAX_BLOCK.patch

On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 07:55:10PM +0000, Holger Kiehl wrote:
> You are right. I did compare the .config of both and noticed that
> CONFIG_FAIR_GROUP_SCHED was set in the rc9 test but not in rc8 test.
> Doing the test without CONFIG_FAIR_GROUP_SCHED gave me back 6%.
> Sorry.

You may have told us already, but can you tell me the full
configuration of your benchmark machine?  (i.e., how many CPU's, how
much memory, etc.)  Also, what are the current mount options you are
currently using?  And have you redone the ext3 benchmark number with
barriers enabled?  Or was that the original number done with default
mount options that leave barriers disabled?

Thanks!!

						- Ted
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html