linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH] ext4: use percpu counter for extent cache count

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 1 Mar 2013 13:00:35 -0500
From:	Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
To:	Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>
Cc:	Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>,
	"gnehzuil.liu" <gnehzuil.liu@...il.com>,
	Zheng Liu <wenqing.lz@...bao.com>,
	"linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org" <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ext4: use percpu counter for extent cache count

On Fri, Mar 01, 2013 at 10:42:25AM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> Use a percpu counter rather than atomic types for shrinker accounting.
> There's no need for ultimate accuracy in the shrinker, so this
> should come a little more cheaply.  The percpu struct is somewhat
> large, but there was a big gap before the cache-aligned
> s_es_lru_lock anyway, and it fits nicely in there.

I thought about using percpu counters, but I was worried about the
size on really big machines.  OTOH, it will be the really large NUMA
machines where atomic_t will really hurt, so maybe we should use
percpu countesr and not really worry about it.  It's on a per file
system basis, so even if it is a few hundred bytes it shouldn't break
the bank.

						- Ted
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html