linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 15/17] fs: inode per-cpu last

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: <20101006085131.GA7295@lst.de>
Date:	Wed, 6 Oct 2010 04:51:31 -0400
From:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To:	Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
Cc:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>, dada1@...mosbay.com,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 15/17] fs: inode per-cpu last_ino allocator

On Wed, Oct 06, 2010 at 05:29:21PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> Sounds like a good plan, but I don't really have time right now to
> understand the iget routines of every single filesystem to determine
> which rely on the current new_inode() allocated inode number. I
> think that is best left for a later cleanup, seeing as the
> last_ino scalability problem is easily addressed...

It's fairly easy to do it pessimisticly - all disk based filesystem
don't need it.  Anyway, I can do this ontop of your series later.  It just
seems a bit counter-intuitive to scale something we don't actually need it
most cases.

--
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/