| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <4e5e476b0902061518l7370fad2x7687471ce9acc239@mail.gmail.com> Date: Sat, 7 Feb 2009 00:18:11 +0100 From: Corrado Zoccolo <czoccolo@...il.com> To: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org> Cc: Bill Nottingham <notting@...hat.com>, Harald Hoyer <harald@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, power@...host.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] tracer for sys_open() - sreadahead On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 4:47 PM, Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org> wrote: > > another issue with the "use strace" approach is selinux... > (this is in addition to the performance and behavioral changes) Regarding behavioral changes, we should consider that just introducing sreadahead in the boot process will change the system behaviour, especially with distros that try and start multiple processes in parallel during boot. This means that, in order to approximate the optimal boot, sreadahead should monitor every boot (even when it is performing readahead), and modify the order of the opened files accordingly. I'm using a modified sreadahead version that implements this (on top of original ext3 patch), and the number of I/O waits shown by bootchart reduced noticeably w.r.t. naive sreadahead. So the assumption that just 1 slow boot is enough doesn't hold. We should try to have a low overhead tracing system in the kernel, to be able to implement this more efficiently. Corrado -- 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