linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] improve jbd fsync batching

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: <20081028144401.07b7546d@infradead.org>
Date:	Tue, 28 Oct 2008 14:44:01 -0700
From:	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
To:	Andreas Dilger <adilger@....com>
Cc:	Josef Bacik <jbacik@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
	rwheeler@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] improve jbd fsync batching

On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 15:38:05 -0600
Andreas Dilger <adilger@....com> wrote:

> On Oct 28, 2008  16:16 -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
> > I also have a min() check in there to make sure we don't sleep
> > longer than a jiffie in case our storage is super slow, this was
> > requested by Andrew.
> 
> Is there a particular reason why 1 jiffie is considered the "right
> amount" of time to sleep, given this is a kernel config parameter and
> has nothing to do with the storage?  Considering a seek time in the
> range of ~10ms this would only be right for HZ=100 and the wait would

well... my disk does a 50 usec seek time or so.. so I don't mind ;-)

in fact it sounds awefully long to me.

-- 
Arjan van de Ven 	Intel Open Source Technology Centre
For development, discussion and tips for power savings, 
visit http://www.lesswatts.org
--
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/