linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] bcachefs updates for 6.9

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: <CAHk-=whbgtooUErM9bOP2iWimndpkPLaPy1YZmbmHACU07h3Mw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2024 14:51:38 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...ux.dev>
Cc: "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...nel.org>, linux-bcachefs@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] bcachefs updates for 6.9

On Wed, 13 Mar 2024 at 14:34, Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...ux.dev> wrote:
>
> I liked your MAD suggestion, but the catch was that we need an
> exponentially weighted version,

The code for the weighted version literally doesn't change.

The variance value is different, but the difference between MAD and
standard deviation is basically just a constant factor (which will be
different for different distributions, but so what? Any _particular_
case will have a particular distribution).

So why would a constant factor make _any_ difference for any
exponential weighting?

Anyway, feel free to keep your code in bcachefs.

And maybe xfs even wants to copy that code. I don't care, it seems
stupid, but that's a filesystem choice.

But if we're making it a generic kernel library, it needs to be sane.
Not making people do 64-bit square roots and 128-bit divides just for
a random statistical element.

              Linus