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
| ||
|
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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists