linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] fuse: make foffset alignment opt-in for optimum backend performance

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: <CAJfpegsgCJEv=XxuHgo+Qn-3y8Rc_Bsmt2YKTHn4XaBqvgshew@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2024 09:51:25 +0200
From: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
To: Jingbo Xu <jefflexu@...ux.alibaba.com>
Cc: Bernd Schubert <bernd.schubert@...tmail.fm>, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fuse: make foffset alignment opt-in for optimum backend performance

On Fri, 5 Jul 2024 at 14:00, Jingbo Xu <jefflexu@...ux.alibaba.com> wrote:
> I'm okay with resuing max_pages as the alignment constraint.  They are
> the same in our internal scenarios.  But I'm not sure if it is the case
> in other scenarios.

max_pages < alignment makes little sense.

max_pages = n * alignment could make sense, i.e. allow writes that are
whole multiples of the alignment.

I'm not against adding a separate alignment, but it could be just
uint8_t to take up less space in init_out.   We could have done that
with max_stack_depth too.   Oh well...

Thanks,
Miklos