linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/8][RFC] IO latency/throughput fixes

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20090406212615.GC8586@mit.edu>
Date:	Mon, 6 Apr 2009 17:26:15 -0400
From:	Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/8][RFC] IO latency/throughput fixes

On Mon, Apr 06, 2009 at 01:10:50PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> where basically each 'sync' on the big file triggers that 15-20s total 
> failure. I do wonder if it's actually gotten _worse_ for the data=ordered 
> case, but at the same time it does make a pretty compelling argument for 
> switching the defaults around.

My first set of patches that I pushed to you were designed to fix
things for data=ordered, and did result in improvements for 2.6.29
versus 2.6.29+ext3-latency-fixes in the data=ordered case.  (It was
only in the last day or two that I switched to focusing on improving
things for data=writeback mode.)

I haven't benchmarked 2.6.29 versus 2.6.29 plus *all* of the recent
latency fixes with data=ordered, but I would expect that timings are
the same or better.

					- Ted
--
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/