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  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]
Date:   Tue, 25 May 2021 23:31:50 +0100
From:   David Howells <>
To:     Andreas Dilger <>
Cc:, Theodore Ts'o <>,
        "Darrick J. Wong" <>, Chris Mason <>,
        Ext4 Developers List <>,
        xfs <>,
        linux-btrfs <>,,
        linux-fsdevel <>,
        NeilBrown <>
Subject: Re: How capacious and well-indexed are ext4, xfs and btrfs directories?

Andreas Dilger <> wrote:

> As described elsewhere in the thread, allowing concurrent create and unlink
> in a directory (rename probably not needed) would be invaluable for scaling
> multi-threaded workloads.  Neil Brown posted a prototype patch to add this
> to the VFS for NFS:

Actually, one thing I'm looking at is using vfs_tmpfile() to create a new file
(or a replacement file when invalidation is required) and then using
vfs_link() to attach directory entries in the background (possibly using
vfs_link() with AT_LINK_REPLACE[1] instead of unlink+link).

Any thoughts on how that might scale?  vfs_tmpfile() doesn't appear to require
the directory inode lock.  I presume the directory is required for security
purposes in addition to being a way to specify the target filesystem.



Powered by blists - more mailing lists