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  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]
Date:	Thu, 17 Sep 2009 21:21:37 -0700
From:	Badari Pulavarty <>
To:	Jan Kara <>
CC:, LKML <>,
	Andrew Morton <>
Subject: Re: Is nobh code still useful?

Jan Kara wrote:
>   Hi,
>   during my page_mkwrite() work, I've looked at who uses nobh_ versions of
> various functions in fs/buffer.c. It seems only ext2 and jfs use them. ext3
> uses them only from writepage() (which means we needn't attach buffers to a
> page when it was written via mmap in writeback mode) and ext4 tries to use
> them but in fact it's nop because it always attaches buffers to the page
> earlier. So it's not really widely used, there's quite some code to support
> it (including one page flag), and it also slightly complicates my
> page_mkwrite() fixes.
>   So I wanted to ask does somebody actually remember what it is good for?
> Buffer heads obviously consume some memory so was that the reason? OTOH we
> have to map the page whenever we write to it or send it to disk via
> writepage().
Originally it was supported on ext2. I added support nobh support for 
ext3. At that time, the main
issue/complaint was that, these bufferheads consume memory from 
memory pressure on 32-bit (i386) configurations.


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists