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: <20081104052428.GP3184@webber.adilger.int>
Date:	Mon, 03 Nov 2008 22:24:28 -0700
From:	Andreas Dilger <adilger@....com>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
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 Nov 03, 2008  12:27 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 16:16:15 -0400
> Josef Bacik <jbacik@...hat.com> wrote:
> > +		spin_lock(&journal->j_state_lock);
> > +		commit_time = journal->j_average_commit_time;
> > +		spin_unlock(&journal->j_state_lock);
> 
> OK, the lock is needed on 32-bit machines, I guess.

Should we pessimize the 64-bit performance in that case, for 32-bit
increasingly rare 32-bit platforms?

It might be useful to have a spin_{,un}lock_64bit_word() helper that
evaluates to a no-op on plaforms that don't need a hammer to do an atomic
64-bit update.

Cheers, Andreas
--
Andreas Dilger
Sr. Staff Engineer, Lustre Group
Sun Microsystems of Canada, Inc.

--
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/