linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm: add config for readahead window

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 19 Mar 2018 03:15:11 +0000
From:   Wei Wang <wvw@...gle.com>
To:     Huang Ying <ying.huang@...el.com>
Cc:     gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, Todd Poynor <toddpoynor@...gle.com>,
        Wei Wang <wei.vince.wang@...il.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
        "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
        Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
        Jérôme Glisse <jglisse@...hat.com>,
        Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Sherry Cheung <SCheung@...dia.com>,
        "Oliver O'Halloran" <oohall@...il.com>,
        Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@...tuozzo.com>,
        Dennis Zhou <dennisz@...com>,
        Pavel Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@...cle.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: add config for readahead window

On Sun, Mar 18, 2018 at 7:37 PM Huang, Ying <ying.huang@...el.com> wrote:

> Wei Wang <wvw@...gle.com> writes:

> > Android devices boot time benefits by bigger readahead window setting
from
> > init. This patch will make readahead window a config so early boot can
> > benefit by it as well.

> Can you change the source code of init to call ioctl(BLKRASET) early?

> Best Regards,
> Huang, Ying

Yes, I am sure we can work this out by not touching it in mainline kernel.
One reason to bring it up again is that we found some SoC vendor has always
set a different value than default (128) in their kernel tree.

Thanks,
Wei Wang