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  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
 
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Wed, 11 Jul 2012 16:36:16 +0300
From:	Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@...il.com>
To:	Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Cc:	Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>,
	Linux FS Maling List <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Maling List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Ext4 Mailing List <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv6 3/5] ext4: remove unnecessary superblock dirtying

On Wed, 2012-07-11 at 12:11 +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> > > So case 2.b is a bit controversial, but I think it is acceptable. After all, by
> > > enabling checksumming we already sign up for paying the price of calculating
> > > it. The way to improve checksumming performance globally would be to calculate
> > > it just before sending buffers to the I/O queue. We'd need some kind of
> > > call-back which could be registered by file-systems.
>   Actually, the most common case of adding orphan inode used
> ext4_handle_dirty_super_now() so for that case there is no difference. And
> other cases are so rare it really does not matter... So there shouldn't be
> any measurable difference.

Actually, the entire "orphan" case uses 'ext4_handle_dirty_super_now()',
so this code-path is actually unaffected by my patch-set, so I do not
have to even worry about it. My changes affect only the
'ext4_handle_dirty_super()' users, and there are only 3 of them, and
they are extremely rare one-time events.

-- 
Best Regards,
Artem Bityutskiy

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (837 bytes)

Powered by blists - more mailing lists