linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 04/19] fs: Implement lazy LRU updates for inodes.

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: <20101017004742.GD1614@infradead.org>
Date:	Sat, 16 Oct 2010 20:47:42 -0400
From:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To:	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...nel.dk>
Cc:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/19] fs: Implement lazy LRU updates for inodes.

On Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 04:34:22AM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > This might actually be the better approach anyway (even for upstream)
> > -- it means we don't have to worry about the "check head element"
> > heuristic of the LRU check which could get false negatives if there is
> > a lot of concurrency on the LRU.
> 
> Oh hmm, but then you do have the double lock of the LRU lock.
> 
> if (can_unuse_after_iput(inode)) {
>   spin_lock(&inode_lock);
>   list_move(inode, list tail)
>   spin_unlock(&inode_lock);
> }
> iput(inode);
> spin_lock(&inode_lock);
> 
> Is that worth it?

Probably not.
--
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/