linux-kernel - Re: Btrfs for mainline

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:	Mon, 5 Jan 2009 09:23:11 -0700
From:	Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>
To:	Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
Cc:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-btrfs <linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@...ell.com>
Subject: Re: Btrfs for mainline

On Tue, Jan 06, 2009 at 01:47:23AM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> adaptive locks have traditionally (read: Linus says) indicated the locking
> is suboptimal from a performance perspective and should be reworked. This
> is definitely the case for the -rt patchset, because they deliberately
> trade performance by change even very short held spinlocks to sleeping locks. 
> 
> So I don't really know if -rt justifies adaptive locks in mainline/btrfs.
> Is there no way for the short critical sections to be decoupled from the
> long/sleeping ones?

I wondered about that option too.  Let's see if we have other users that
will benefit from adaptive locks -- my gut says that Linus is right, but
then there's a lot of lazy programmers out there using mutexes when they
should be using spinlocks.

I wonder about a new lockdep-style debugging option that adds a bit per
mutex class to determine whether the holder ever slept while holding it.
Then a periodic check could determine which mutexes were needlessly held
would find one style of bad lock management.

The comment in btrfs certainly indicates that locking redesign is a
potential solution:

 * locks the per buffer mutex in an extent buffer.  This uses adaptive locks
 * and the spin is not tuned very extensively.  The spinning does make a big
 * difference in almost every workload, but spinning for the right amount of
 * time needs some help.
 *
 * In general, we want to spin as long as the lock holder is doing btree searches,
 * and we should give up if they are in more expensive code.

btrfs almost wants its own hybrid locks (like lock_sock(), to choose
a new in-tree example).  One where it will spin, unless a flag is set
to not spin, in which case it sleeps.  Then the 'more expensive code'
can set the flag to not bother spinning.

-- 
Matthew Wilcox				Intel Open Source Technology Centre
"Bill, look, we understand that you're interested in selling us this
operating system, but compare it to ours.  We can't possibly take such
a retrograde step."
--
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/