linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 07/19] btrfs: do sequential extent allocation in HMZONED mode

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]

Date:   Thu, 27 Jun 2019 17:28:54 +0200
From:   David Sterba <dsterba@...e.cz>
To:     Naohiro Aota <Naohiro.Aota@....com>
Cc:     "dsterba@...e.cz" <dsterba@...e.cz>,
        "linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org" <linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org>,
        David Sterba <dsterba@...e.com>, Chris Mason <clm@...com>,
        Josef Bacik <josef@...icpanda.com>, Qu Wenruo <wqu@...e.com>,
        Nikolay Borisov <nborisov@...e.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.com>,
        "linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Damien Le Moal <Damien.LeMoal@....com>,
        Matias Bjørling <mb@...htnvm.io>,
        Johannes Thumshirn <jthumshirn@...e.de>,
        Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/19] btrfs: do sequential extent allocation in HMZONED
 mode

On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 08:49:00AM +0000, Naohiro Aota wrote:
> On 2019/06/18 7:29, David Sterba wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 07, 2019 at 10:10:13PM +0900, Naohiro Aota wrote:
> >> +	u64 unusable;
> > 
> > 'unusable' is specific to the zones, so 'zone_unusable' would make it
> > clear. The terminilogy around space is confusing already (we have
> > unused, free, reserved, allocated, slack).
> 
> Sure. I will change the name.
> 
> Or, is it better toadd new struct "btrfs_seq_alloc_info" and move all
> these variable there? Then, I can just add one pointer to the struct here.

There are 4 new members, but the block group structure is large already
(528 bytes) so adding a few more will not make the allocations worse.
There are also holes or inefficient types used so the size can be
squeezed a bit, but this is unrelated to this patchset.