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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 10 May 2022 04:20:18 +0100 From: Phillip Lougher <phillip@...ashfs.org.uk> To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org> Cc: Xiongwei Song <sxwjean@...il.com>, Zheng Liang <zhengliang6@...wei.com>, Zhang Yi <yi.zhang@...wei.com>, Hou Tao <houtao1@...wei.com>, Miao Xie <miaoxie@...wei.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, Hsin-Yi Wang <hsinyi@...omium.org>, "Song, Xiongwei" <Xiongwei.Song@...driver.com>, "linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>, "squashfs-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net" <squashfs-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>, open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: squashfs performance regression and readahea On 10/05/2022 03:35, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Tue, May 10, 2022 at 02:11:41AM +0100, Phillip Lougher wrote: >> On 09/05/2022 14:21, Matthew Wilcox wrote: >>> On Mon, May 09, 2022 at 08:43:45PM +0800, Xiongwei Song wrote: >>>> Hi Hsin-Yi and Matthew, >>>> >>>> With the patch from the attachment on linux 5.10, ran the command as I >>>> mentioned earlier, >>>> got the results below: >>>> 1:40.65 (1m + 40.65s) >>>> 1:10.12 >>>> 1:11.10 >>>> 1:11.47 >>>> 1:11.59 >>>> 1:11.94 >>>> 1:11.86 >>>> 1:12.04 >>>> 1:12.21 >>>> 1:12.06 >>>> >>>> The performance has improved obviously, but compared to linux 4.18, the >>>> performance is not so good. >>>> >>>> Moreover, I wanted to test on linux 5.18. But I think I should revert >>>> 9eec1d897139 ("squashfs: provide backing_dev_info in order to disable >>>> read-ahead"), >>>> right? Otherwise, the patch doesn't work? >>> >>> I've never seen patch 9eec1d897139 before. If you're going to point >>> out bugs in my code, at least have the decency to cc me on it. It >>> should never have gone in, and should be reverted so the problem can >>> be fixed properly. >> >> You are not in charge of what patches goes into Squashfs, that is my >> perogative as maintainer of Squashfs. > > I think you mean 'prerogative'. And, no, your filesystem is not your > little fiefdom, it's part of a collaborative effort. > This isn't a spelling contest, and if that's the best you can do you have already failed. Be carefull here also, I have been maintainer of Squashfs for 20 years, and was kernel maintainer for both Ubuntu and Redhat for 10 years, and so I am experienced member of the community. You reply is bordering on offensive and arrogant, especially considering it is unwarranted. I did not set out to offend you, and I don't appreciate it. About 8 years ago I decided to refrain from active involvement in the kernel community, because I decided the level of discourse was disgusting, and I had enough of it. I poped up now to defend my approval of the Huawei patch. I am *quite* happy not to have any more involvement until necessary. So having said what I want to say, I will leave it at that. You have just proved why I have minimised my involvement. No doubt you'll throw your toys out the pram, but, I'm no longer listening so don't bother. >> That patch (by Huawei) fixes the performance regression in Squashfs >> by disabling readahead, and it is good workaround until something >> better. > > You *didn't even report the problem to me*. How can it be fixed if I'm > not aware of it? > There was a email discussion last year, which I responded to, and got ignored. I will find it out tomorrow, perhaps. But I will probably not bother, because life is too short. Cheers Phillip
Powered by blists - more mailing lists