linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/3] i_ino uniqueness: alternate approach -- hash the inodes

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <45B78FF9.40202@redhat.com>
Date:	Wed, 24 Jan 2007 11:57:29 -0500
From:	Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>
To:	Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>
CC:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] i_ino uniqueness: alternate approach -- hash the
 inodes

Eric Dumazet wrote:
 > The problem is you wont see the overhead of insert/delete the inode in a
 > global tree, since you keep hot caches.
 >
 > To have a better estimate of the overhead, I suggest you try to use more
 > active pipes like :
 >

Eric, thanks for the new program. With that, the situation looks slightly
worse:

hashing patch (pipebench):
sys     1m15.329s
sys     1m16.249s
sys     1m17.169s

unpatched (pipebench):
sys     1m9.836s
sys     1m12.541s
sys     1m14.153s

Which works out to 1.05642174294555027017. So ~5-6%.

-- Jeff

-
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/