From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Eric Paris Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] IMA: move read/write counters into struct inode Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 18:49:06 -0400 Message-ID: <1287528546.2530.277.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <20101019011650.25346.99614.stgit@paris.rdu.redhat.com> <1287506215.2530.187.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20101019165530.GT19804@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Al Viro , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, hch@infradead.org, zohar@us.ibm.com, warthog9@kernel.org, david@fromorbit.com, jmorris@namei.org, kyle@mcmartin.ca, hpa@zytor.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, mingo@elte.hu To: Linus Torvalds Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:54138 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755945Ab0JSWu1 (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Oct 2010 18:50:27 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Executive summary of the day's work: Yesterday morning: 944 bytes per inode in core Yesterday night: 24 bytes per inode in core Tonight: 4 bytes per inode in core. That's a x236 time reduction in memory usage. No I didn't even start looking at a freezer. Which could bring that 4 down to 0, but would add a scalability penalty on all inodes when IMA was enabled. The memory associated with inodes that IMA actually cares about has gone from 312 to 320 bytes. I'm going to follow up with my patch series again but they aren't really ready to be applied. The IBM people who wrote IMA are reviewing them. I have some questions if my RCU+RBTREE usage is valid/correct. I'd really like Al to take a close look at the last patch in the series to make sure my use of i_writecount actually does what I want it to do... -Eric