linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH v3 5/6] ext4: use a list to track all reclaimable objects for extent status tree

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: <20140903034404.GC2504@thunk.org>
Date:	Tue, 2 Sep 2014 23:44:04 -0400
From:	Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
To:	Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Cc:	Zheng Liu <gnehzuil.liu@...il.com>, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
	Andreas Dilger <adilger.kernel@...ger.ca>,
	Zheng Liu <wenqing.lz@...bao.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 5/6] ext4: use a list to track all reclaimable objects
 for extent status tree

On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 05:13:54PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> 
> What we could do to limit latency caused by scanning of unreclaimable
> extents is to change the shrinker to really stop after inspecting
> nr_to_scan extents regardless of how many extents did we really reclaim -
> this is actually how slab shrinkers are designed to work.  We would also
> have to record the logical block where the shrinker stopped scanning the
> inode and the next shrinker invocation will start scanning at that offset -
> it is enough to store this offset in the superblock, we just have to zero
> it out when we remove the first inode from the list of inodes with cached
> extents.
> 
> What do people think about this?

Yes, I agree this would be a better approach.

					- 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