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:	Wed, 30 Jun 2010 18:38:14 +1000
From:	Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
To:	npiggin@...e.de
Cc:	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	John Stultz <johnstul@...ibm.com>,
	Frank Mayhar <fmayhar@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 37/52] fs: icache lazy lru

On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 01:02:49PM +1000, npiggin@...e.de wrote:
> Impelemnt lazy inode lru similarly to dcache. This will reduce lock
> acquisition and will help to improve lock ordering subsequently.

I'm not sure we want the I_REFERENCED reclaim free pass for a clean
inode that has been put on the LRU directly. I can see exactly how
it is benficial to delay reclaim of dirty inodes (XFS uses that
trick), but in terms of aging the cache we've already done this
free pass trick at the dentry level. Hence I think the frequent
separate access patterns tend to be filtered out at the dcache level
and hence we don't need to handle that in the inode cache.

Perhaps we only need the I_REFERENCED flag to give dirty inodes a
chance to be flushed by other means before forcing reclaim to do
inode writeback?

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@...morbit.com
--
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/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ