| 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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 14:59:49 -0400 From: Ted Ts'o <tytso@....edu> To: Fredrick <fjohnber@...o.com> Cc: Ric Wheeler <rwheeler@...hat.com>, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, Andreas Dilger <adilger@...ger.ca>, wenqing.lz@...bao.com Subject: Re: ext4_fallocate On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 11:05:40AM -0700, Fredrick wrote: > > I had run perf stat on ext4 functions between two runs of our program > writing data to a file for the first time and writing data to the file > for the second time(where the extents are initialized). >From your mballoc differences, it sounds like you were comparing fallocate with not using fallocate at all; is that right? The comparison you need to do is using normal fallocate versus fallocate with the no-hide-stale feature enabled. It's obvious that allocating blocks as you need will always be more expensive than using fallocate. - Ted -- 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