linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/5] Per superblock shrinkers V2

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: <20100712024104.GD25335@dastard>
Date:	Mon, 12 Jul 2010 12:41:04 +1000
From:	Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
To:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-mm@...ck.org, xfs@....sgi.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] Per superblock shrinkers V2

On Fri, Jul 02, 2010 at 08:13:04AM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> Did you plan to resubmit this with the few review comments addressed?
> I'd really hate to not see this in 2.6.36.

I've been doing some more testing on it, and while I can get a 25%
reduction in the time to create and remove 10 million inodes with
per-sb shrinker, I can't get the reclaim pattern stable enough for
my liking.

At this point in the cycle, I'd much prefer just to go with adding a
context to the shrinker API to fix the XFS locking issues (i.e.  the
original patches I sent) and spend a bit more time working out which
combination of Nick's and my bits that improves reclaim speed whilst
retaining the stability of the courrent code....

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@...morbit.com
--
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/