linux-kernel - Re: vfs: Add MS_FLUSHONFSYNC mount flag

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: <1234770444.32677.60.camel@sebastian.kern.oss.ntt.co.jp>
Date:	Mon, 16 Feb 2009 16:47:24 +0900
From:	Fernando Luis Vázquez Cao 
	<fernando@....ntt.co.jp>
To:	Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>
Cc:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>,
	Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Pavel Machek <pavel@...e.cz>,
	kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>, fernando@....ac.jp,
	Ric Wheeler <rwheeler@...hat.com>,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: vfs: Add MS_FLUSHONFSYNC mount flag

On Sun, 2009-02-15 at 17:54 -0500, Theodore Tso wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 15, 2009 at 04:23:26PM +0900, Fernando Luis Vázquez Cao wrote:
> > You mentioned "we should integrate this with the barrier settings". Do
> > you imply we should make it a per-device tunable too? Should we keep the
> > barrier-related mount options some filesystems provide?
> > 
> 
> Making barriers to be a per-device tunable makes sense.  The only
> reason why we kept it as a mount option in ext4 is for benchmarking
> purposes, and in ext3, because the filesystem predated the barrier
> code, and there was a desire to be able to benchmark with and without
> the old behavior --- and because akpm is still worried about the
> performance hit of the barrier code, so he's been resistant about
> change the default for ext3.

Ok, I'll turn both barriers and flushonfsync into a sysfs-exported
per-device knob and see how it turns out.

By the way, should we also add/keep a mount option for "benchmarking
purposes"?. I guess that once we get the per-device tunable we probable
do not need it anymore.

Regards,

Fernando

--
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/