linux-ext4 - Re: [RFC] fadvise: add more flags to provide a hint for block allocation

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: <4F564F19.50804@oracle.com>
Date:	Tue, 06 Mar 2012 09:53:29 -0800
From:	Sunil Mushran <sunil.mushran@...cle.com>
To:	Lukas Czerner <lczerner@...hat.com>
CC:	Zheng Liu <gnehzuil.liu@...il.com>, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] fadvise: add more flags to provide a hint for block allocation

On 03/06/2012 06:29 AM, Lukas Czerner wrote:
> However the file system do not have the information which part of the
> device it resides on is faster. It might be the beginning of the file
> system, but it might not be the case at all.


Think HSM and flash storage as the hot region. Remember these are
hints and not guaranteed to work in all cases.


> Moreover the flag which is stating that the file does not have to be
> allocated sequentially is not particularly helpful, I can not imagine
> people using it. Why would someone want to lower their performance ?
> Well, they might think that it will increase performance of the other
> files, but that is highly disputable and there are better solutions like
> using faster storage for the files that actually needs it.
>
> Additionally *_HOT* flag does not say anything about the allocation
> policy. It might be accessed often ,but no in sequential manner, or it
> can be written to a lot, it can be appended a lot, or it the content
> might be changed without changing its size etc... *Hot* might mean so
> many thing that this is just not useful for the file system. It would
> certainly be better to come up with something less esoteric which would
> actually address concrete user issues and help file system to deal with
> them better, like, I do not know, do not fsync/force allocation on
> rename maybe...(or whatever we are doing right now).

_HOT/_COLD is descriptive for allocation policy though fadvise() is
the wrong call as it pertains to access patterns.

Sunil
--
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