linux-kernel - Re: Improve lseek scalability v3

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20110916130054.GA8997@parisc-linux.org>
Date:	Fri, 16 Sep 2011 07:00:55 -0600
From:	Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>
To:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Cc:	viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Improve lseek scalability v3

On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 04:06:46PM -0700, Andi Kleen wrote:
> Currently generic_file_llseek users synchronize all on the inode i_mutex,
> which is very heavy handed because it affects even different processes.
> 
> This patchkit attempts to make generic_file_llseek (mostly) lockless.

Yes, but, are there any real workloads which care?  I know will-it-scale
says that lseek doesn't scale, but any real app which has a seek-heavy
workload is surely using pread()/pwrite() by now ... after all, they
were in UNIX98 so they've been a standard for 13 years.

-- 
Matthew Wilcox				Intel Open Source Technology Centre
"Bill, look, we understand that you're interested in selling us this
operating system, but compare it to ours.  We can't possibly take such
a retrograde step."
--
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/