| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <877gheof96.fsf@devron.myhome.or.jp> Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2013 16:39:49 +0900 From: OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@...l.parknet.co.jp> To: Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com> Cc: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, tux3@...3.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Optimize wait_sb_inodes() Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com> writes: >> > A performance regression using fsstress? That's not a program >> > intended to be a useful benchmark for measuring performance. >> >> Right. fsstress is used as stress tool for me too as part of CI, with >> background vmstat 1. Anyway, it is why I noticed this. >> >> I agree it would not be high priority. But I don't think we should stop >> to optimize it. > > But you're not proposing any sort of optimisation at all - you're > simply proposing to hack around the problem so you don't have to > care about it. The VFS is a shared resource - it has to work well > for everyone - and that means we need to fix problems and not ignore > them. Agree, vfs has to work well for everyone. To work well, vfs should not force unnecessary overhead/wait. I'm not saying to stop optimizing wait_sb_inodes() itself, I'm saying it is not enough. Thanks. -- OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@...l.parknet.co.jp> -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists