On Wed, 2010-10-20 at 17:15 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > * 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? No, we need to keep the open read counter even for non-IMA-affected files in case we later determine that it is IMA-affected. That's the 4 bytes I have today, which I said could be eliminated with a freezer that calculated it when IMA was enabled, but isn't something I'm looking at right now.... -Eric -Eric -- 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
