linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/3] i_ino uniqueness: alternate approach -- hash the inodes

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, 23 Jan 2007 20:46:48 -0800
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>
To:	Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>
Cc:	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] i_ino uniqueness: alternate approach -- hash the
 inodes

On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 13:57:38 -0500
Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com> wrote:

> The questions are:
> 
> 1) how much would this slow down lookups for these filesystems?
> 2) is it enough to justify adding more infrastructure to avoid it?
> 
> What might be best is to start with this approach and then only move to using
> IDR or some other scheme if these extra inodes in the hashtable prove to be
> problematic.
> 
> I've done some cursory testing with this patch and the overhead of hashing
> and unhashing the inodes with pipefs is pretty low -- just a few seconds of
> system time added on to the creation and destruction of 10 million pipes (very
> similar to the overhead that the IDR approach would add).

What is the additional overhead, expressed in relative terms?  ie: as a percentage?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/