lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Oct]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 06/11] IMA: use i_writecount rather than a private counter
>>>>> "Eric" == Eric Paris <eparis@redhat.com> writes:

Eric> On Mon, 2010-10-25 at 15:25 -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> On 10/25/2010 02:52 PM, Eric Paris wrote:
>> > On Mon, 2010-10-25 at 15:27 -0400, John Stoffel wrote:
>> >
>> >> The problems with kernel.org is a perfect exmaple of how an annocuous
>> >> feature like this, can kill a system's performance.
>> >
>> > You admit that you don't know what you are talking about and then state
>> > that this kills systems performance. Interesting conclusion.
>> >
>> > I'm not going to try to refute you point by point but will instead paint
>> > a broad picture. I see 3 possible states:
>> > 1) Configured out - 0 overhead. period.
>> > 2) Configured in but default disabled
>> > 3) Configured in and enabled by admin intervention
>> >
>> > I have (I think) pretty clearly discussed the overhead and the changes
>> > made in case #2. We expand struct inode by 4 bytes, we increment and
>> > decrement those 4 bytes on open/close() and we use a new inode->i_flags.
>> >
>>
>> Case #2 is the bad one, as long as distros are likely to compile it in.

Eric> Agreed. And that's the case this whole patch series is addressing. It
Eric> makes it (literally not figuratively) hundreds of times better than it
Eric> is today :)

And just to chime in, I really appreciate your hard work on this
cleanup!

John


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-10-26 16:01    [W:0.069 / U:0.080 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site