* Eric Paris <eparis@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, 2010-10-20 at 16:38 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Eric Paris <eparis@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > 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. > > > > Why not use inode->i_security intelligently? That already exists so that way > > it's 0 bytes. > > > > Thanks, > > It still wouldn't be 0 bytes since there would be a 1-1 mapping from inode to > i_security structs. [...] Only for IMA-affected files, right? My point is to keep it 0 overhead for the _non IMA common case_. > The real reason I don't pursue this route is because of the litany of different > ways this pointer is used in different LSMs (or not used at all.) And we all know > that LSM authors aren't known for seeing the world the same way as each other. As > a maintainer of one of those LSMs even I'm scared to try pushing that forward.... Ugh. That's a perfect reason to do it exactly like i suggested. Thanks, Ingo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
