linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH] improve jbd fsync batching

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: <49078A97.8020003@redhat.com>
Date:	Tue, 28 Oct 2008 17:56:39 -0400
From:	Ric Wheeler <rwheeler@...hat.com>
To:	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
CC:	Andreas Dilger <adilger@....com>, Josef Bacik <jbacik@...hat.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] improve jbd fsync batching

Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 15:38:05 -0600
> Andreas Dilger <adilger@....com> wrote:
>
>   
>> On Oct 28, 2008  16:16 -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
>>     
>>> I also have a min() check in there to make sure we don't sleep
>>> longer than a jiffie in case our storage is super slow, this was
>>> requested by Andrew.
>>>       
>> Is there a particular reason why 1 jiffie is considered the "right
>> amount" of time to sleep, given this is a kernel config parameter and
>> has nothing to do with the storage?  Considering a seek time in the
>> range of ~10ms this would only be right for HZ=100 and the wait would
>>     
>
> well... my disk does a 50 usec seek time or so.. so I don't mind ;-)
>
> in fact it sounds awefully long to me.
>   

For small writes as well as reads?

If so, it would be great to test Josef's patch against your shiny new 
SSD  :-)

ric

--
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