linux-ext4 - Re: [CALL FOR TESTING] Make Ext3 fsck way faster [2.6.24-rc6 -mm patch]

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]

Message-Id: <20080123234905.35664ed6.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Wed, 23 Jan 2008 23:49:05 -0800
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Abhishek Rai <abhishekrai@...gle.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
	rohitseth@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [CALL FOR TESTING] Make Ext3 fsck way faster [2.6.24-rc6 -mm
 patch]

> On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 04:12:16 -0500 Abhishek Rai <abhishekrai@...gle.com> wrote:
> > I'm wondering about the interaction between this code and the
> > buffer_boundary() logic.  I guess we should disable the buffer_boundary()
> > handling when this code is in effect.  Have you reviewed and tested that
> > aspect?
> 
> Thanks for pointing this out, I had totally missed this issue in my change. I've now made the call to set_buffer_boundary() in ext3_get_blocks_handle() subject to metacluster option being set.
> 

Did it make any performance difference?  iirc the buffer_boundary stuff was
worth around 10% on a single linear read of a large, well-laid-out file.
-
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