linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v8 20/24] erofs: introduce generic decompression backend

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: <20190830165533.GA10909@infradead.org>
Date:   Fri, 30 Aug 2019 09:55:33 -0700
From:   Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To:     Gao Xiang <gaoxiang25@...wei.com>
Cc:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, devel@...verdev.osuosl.org,
        Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>, Pavel Machek <pavel@...x.de>,
        David Sterba <dsterba@...e.cz>,
        Amir Goldstein <amir73il@...il.com>,
        "Darrick J . Wong" <darrick.wong@...cle.com>,
        Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
        Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@...nel.org>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
        Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        linux-erofs@...ts.ozlabs.org, Chao Yu <yuchao0@...wei.com>,
        Miao Xie <miaoxie@...wei.com>,
        Li Guifu <bluce.liguifu@...wei.com>,
        Fang Wei <fangwei1@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 20/24] erofs: introduce generic decompression backend

On Sat, Aug 31, 2019 at 12:52:17AM +0800, Gao Xiang wrote:
> Hi Christoph,
> 
> On Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 09:35:34AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 12:41:51PM +0800, Gao Xiang wrote:
> > > +static bool use_vmap;
> > > +module_param(use_vmap, bool, 0444);
> > > +MODULE_PARM_DESC(use_vmap, "Use vmap() instead of vm_map_ram() (default 0)");
> > 
> > And how would anyone know which to pick?
> 
> It has significant FIO benchmark difference on sequential read least on arm64...
> I have no idea whether all platform vm_map_ram() behaves better than vmap(),
> so I leave an option for users here...

vm_map_ram is supposed to generally behave better.  So if it doesn't
please report that that to the arch maintainer and linux-mm so that
they can look into the issue.  Having user make choices of deep down
kernel internals is just a horrible interface.

Please talk to maintainers of other bits of the kernel if you see issues
and / or need enhancements.