linux-ext4 - Re: i_mutex questions

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:	Tue, 13 Sep 2011 17:05:53 -0700
From:	Joel Becker <jlbec@...lplan.org>
To:	Allison Henderson <achender@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
	Ted Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
Subject: Re: i_mutex questions

On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 03:10:56PM -0700, Allison Henderson wrote:
> Well, I actually already had a patch that was trying to use i_mutex
> to solve this ([PATCH 4/6 v7] ext4: Lock i_mutex for punch hole).
> But we decided not to apply it because of plans to reduce the usage
> of i_mutex in the ext4 code.  So I've been trying to figure out a
> different way to solve this, but so far I haven't had a whole lot of
> luck finding a solution that doesn't involve introducing a new
> locking mechanism.  So I wanted to check back here for more details
> on what the plan for i_mutex is so I dont conflict with anything
> that might already be going on.  :)

	Sure ;-)  If you find another mechanism that reduces contention
but still plays well with read/write et al, please let us all know.
Getting i_mutex out of read/write would be interesting.

Joel

-- 

"A narcissist is someone better looking than you are."  
         - Gore Vidal

			http://www.jlbec.org/
			jlbec@...lplan.org
--
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