linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH v3 0/2] ext4: increase mbcache scalability

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20130921185304.GB8606@thunk.org>
Date:	Sat, 21 Sep 2013 14:53:04 -0400
From:	Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
To:	Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>
Cc:	Thavatchai Makphaibulchoke <thavatchai.makpahibulchoke@...com>,
	Andreas Dilger <adilger@...ger.ca>,
	T Makphaibulchoke <tmac@...com>,
	"linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org List" <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
	aswin@...com, aswin_proj@...ts.hp.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/2] ext4: increase mbcache scalability

On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 09:19:10AM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> > I think I found out why we get into the mbcache path.  The test uses
> > ramfss, which are mounted and unmounted at the start and end of the
> > test.  Looks like a ramfs' default inode size is 128, causing all the
> > mbcaching for the xattrs.  There seems to be nothing wrong with
> > either SELinux or xattr.  Sorry for the confusion.
> 
> smaller filesystems go back to 128 byte inodes, IIRC.

Mak, did you mean a ext4 file system created on a ramdisk, using a
/dev/ramNN device, or the literal "ramfs" file system?

I assume the former, right?

					- 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