linux-kernel - Re: [patch 29/52] fs: icache lock i

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: <20100703051816.GG11732@laptop>
Date:	Sat, 3 Jul 2010 15:18:16 +1000
From:	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, John Stultz <johnstul@...ibm.com>,
	Frank Mayhar <fmayhar@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 29/52] fs: icache lock i_count

On Sat, Jul 03, 2010 at 03:06:52PM +1000, Nick Piggin wrote:
> It is possible that locking can be reduced if some things are verified
> and carefully shown not to matter. I just don't see the need yet and it
> would make things overly complicated I think. Introducing any more
> complexity will sink this patchset.

By overly complicated, I mean, for this patchset where locking is
already been rewritten. It would then be no more complicated (actually
far less) than equivalently trying to lift inode_lock from parts of the
code where it is causing contention times.

--
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/