linux-kernel - Re: [lkp-robot] [fs] 5c6de586e8: vm-scalability.throughput +12.4% improvement (from reorganizing struct inode?)

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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 5 Jul 2018 08:50:37 +0300
From:   Amir Goldstein <amir73il@...il.com>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
        kernel test robot <xiaolong.ye@...el.com>, LKP <lkp@...org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [lkp-robot] [fs] 5c6de586e8: vm-scalability.throughput +12.4%
 improvement (from reorganizing struct inode?)

On Thu, Jul 5, 2018 at 4:37 AM, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 4:34 PM Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
>>
>> I don't hate that patch, but there are immediate followup questions - e.g.
>> how sensitive is relative position of i_lock/i_hash/i_sb?  Those are *not*
>> close to each other.  E.g. what happens if one moves i_hash right after
>> i_ino?
>
> I think that's a separate issue from just packing things better.
>
> The original patch is at
>
>     https://marc.info/?l=linux-fsdevel&m=152880180732361&w=2
>
> although I certainly agree with the "just re-send as a proper patch,
> now with a note on potential performance improvements".
>

Will do. But first, let me CC this discussion to some public lists,
so I have somewhere to refer to in commit message...

Thanks,
Amir.