linux-kernel - Re: New filesystem for Linux

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:	Thu, 02 Nov 2006 23:53:00 +0100
From:	Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>
To:	Mikulas Patocka <mikulas@...ax.karlin.mff.cuni.cz>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: New filesystem for Linux

Mikulas Patocka a écrit :
> Hi
> 
> As my PhD thesis, I am designing and writing a filesystem, and it's now 
> in a state that it can be released. You can download it from 
> http://artax.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~mikulas/spadfs/
> 
> It has some new features, such as keeping inode information directly in 
> directory (until you create hardlink) so that ls -la doesn't seek much, 
> new method to keep data consistent in case of crashes (instead of 
> journaling), free space is organized in lists of free runs and converted 
> to bitmap only in case of extreme fragmentation.
> 
> It is not very widely tested, so if you want, test it.
> 
> I have these questions:
> 
> * There is a rw semaphore that is locked for read for nearly all 
> operations and locked for write only rarely. However locking for read 
> causes cache line pingpong on SMP systems. Do you have an idea how to 
> make it better?
> 
> It could be improved by making a semaphore for each CPU and locking for 
> read only the CPU's semaphore and for write all semaphores. Or is there 
> a better method?
> 

If you believe you need a semaphore for protecting a mostly read structure, 
then RCU is certainly a good candidate. (ie no locked operation at all)

The problem with a per_cpu biglock is that you may consume a lot of RAM for 
big NR_CPUS. Count 32 KB per 'biglock' if NR_CPUS=1024

> * This leads to another observation --- on i386 locking a semaphore is 2 
> instructions, on x86_64 it is a call to two nested functions. Has it 
> some reason or was it just implementator's laziness? Given the fact that 
> locked instruction takes 16 ticks on Opteron (and can overlap about 2 
> ticks with other instructions), it would make sense to have optimized 
> semaphores too.

Hum, please dont use *lazy*, this could make Andi unhappy :)

What are you calling semaphore exactly ?
Did you read Documentation/mutex-design.txt ?



-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/