| 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
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 18:52:58 -0500 From: Wendy Cheng <wcheng@...hat.com> To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org> CC: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] prune_icache_sb Andrew Morton wrote: > This search is potentially inefficient. It would be better walk > sb->s_inodes. > > Not sure about walking thru sb->s_inodes for several reasons.... 1. First, the changes made are mostly for file server setup with large fs size - the entry count in sb->s_inodes may not be shorter then inode_unused list. 2. Different from calls such as drop_pagecache_sb() (that doesn't do list entry removal), we're walking thru the list to dispose the entries. This implies we are walking thru one list (sb->s_inodes) to remove the other list's entries (inode_unused). This feels awkward. 3. The new code will be very similar to current prune_icache() with few differences - e.g., we really don't want to list_move() within the sb->s_inodes list itself (as done in prune_icache() that moves the examined entry to the tail of the inode_unused list). We have to either duplicate the code or clutter the current prune_icache() routine. Pruning based on sb->s_inodes *does* have its advantage but a simple and plain patch as shown in previous post (that has been well-tested out in two large scale production systems) could be equally effective. Make sense ? -- Wendy - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists