| 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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 19:13:21 +0100 From: Paweł Sikora <pawel.sikora@...k.net> To: Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com> Cc: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [3.13.2] list passed to list_sort() too long for efficiency. On Wednesday 12 of February 2014 13:03:56 Dave Jones wrote: > On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 06:59:07PM +0100, Paweł Sikora wrote: > > On Wednesday 12 of February 2014 09:46:26 Joe Perches wrote: > > > On Wed, 2014-02-12 at 18:16 +0100, Paweł Sikora wrote: > > > > [16855.582522] list passed to list_sort() too long for efficiency > > > > > > > > could someone put some light on the last line? > > > > > > Did you look at the list_sort function in lib/list_sort.c? > > > > > > (granted the dmesg is harder to find that it should be > > > > > > because the format is split) > > > > > > It just means it's slower than it could otherwise be > > > > thanks, > > so without a stacktrace in dmesg we can't isolate a root of cause :/ > > The commit message mentions xfs and ubifs have long lists that get > passed in. Do you use either of those ? this is a test-farm server which utilizes only cpu/ext4/nfs/lvm/mdadm. -- gpg key fingerprint = 60B4 9886 AD53 EB3E 88BB 1EB5 C52E D01B 683B 9411 -- 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