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. In you e-mail you seemed to be asking about case #3 where you explicitly chose to load a measurement policy (either custom or using the imb_tcb=1 boot option). There are additional overheads in that case if the inode in question matches the measurement policy. I don't see the need to go into the details of that overhead since you have 0 intention of using this feature no matter what and don't seem to be interested in helping to change those overheads for users of the subsystem. Please correct me if I'm wrong. I do readily admit there is overhead, and that overhead will be higher if inodes which have been deemed integrity relevant by the measurement policy you chose to load are changed in certain patterns. -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
