linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH 01/11] ext4: add handling for extended mount options

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: <CAD+ocbyG6_GK-SMotXgm7OmBLmjiRPWMHH0oryYS=gQ7fbPBxA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 22 Jul 2019 14:36:09 -0700
From:   harshad shirwadkar <harshadshirwadkar@...il.com>
To:     "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>
Cc:     Andreas Dilger <adilger@...ger.ca>,
        Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/11] ext4: add handling for extended mount options

Thanks Andreas. Thanks Ted for sharing the original paper link. I'll
submit a patch 00/11 with proposed documentation and cover letter
describing the feature and results from benchmarks.


On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 2:02 PM Theodore Y. Ts'o <tytso@....edu> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 12:15:11PM -0600, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> > Unless I missed it, this patch series needs a 00/11 email that describes
> > *what* "fast commit" is, and why we want it.  This should include some
> > benchmark results, since (I'd assume) that the "fast" part of the feature
> > name implies a performance improvement?
>
> For background, it's a simplified version of the scheme proposed by
> Park and Shin, in their paper, "iJournaling: Fine-Grained Journaling
> for Improving the Latency of Fsync System Call"[1]
>
> [1] https://www.usenix.org/conference/atc17/technical-sessions/presentation/park
>
> I agree we should have a cover letter for this patch series.  Also, we
> should add documentation to Documentation/filesystems/journaling.rst
> about this feature; what it does, how it works, its basic on-disk
> format changes, etc.
>
> The fs/jbd2 layer isn't as well documented as the fs/ext4 code, and
> bringing Documentation/filesystems/journaling.rst to the same level as
> Documentation/filesystems/ext4/* isn't a fair/reasonable request.  On
> the other hand, documenting what is being added by this patch series
> is something that I think we should do.
>
>                                     - Ted