linux-kernel - Re: [patch 44/52] fs: icache per-CPU sb inode lists and locks

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:	Wed, 30 Jun 2010 22:08:50 +1000
From:	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
To:	Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
Cc:	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	John Stultz <johnstul@...ibm.com>,
	Frank Mayhar <fmayhar@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 44/52] fs: icache per-CPU sb inode lists and locks

On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 07:26:41PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 01:02:56PM +1000, npiggin@...e.de wrote:
> > Signed-off-by: Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
> .....
> > @@ -2194,6 +2198,58 @@ static inline void insert_inode_hash(str
> >  
> >  extern void file_sb_list_add(struct file *f, struct super_block *sb);
> >  extern void file_sb_list_del(struct file *f);
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
> > +
> > +/*
> > + * These macros iterate all inodes on all CPUs for a given superblock.
> > + * rcu_read_lock must be held.
> > + */
> > +#define do_inode_list_for_each_entry_rcu(__sb, __inode)		\
> > +{								\
> > +	int i;							\
> > +	for_each_possible_cpu(i) {				\
> > +		struct list_head *list;				\
> > +		list = per_cpu_ptr((__sb)->s_inodes, i);	\
> > +		list_for_each_entry_rcu((__inode), list, i_sb_list)
> > +
> > +#define while_inode_list_for_each_entry_rcu			\
> > +	}							\
> > +}
> > +
> > +#define do_inode_list_for_each_entry_safe(__sb, __inode, __tmp)	\
> > +{								\
> > +	int i;							\
> > +	for_each_possible_cpu(i) {				\
> > +		struct list_head *list;				\
> > +		list = per_cpu_ptr((__sb)->s_inodes, i);	\
> > +		list_for_each_entry_safe((__inode), (__tmp), list, i_sb_list)
> > +
> > +#define while_inode_list_for_each_entry_safe			\
> > +	}							\
> > +}
> > +
> > +#else
> > +
> > +#define do_inode_list_for_each_entry_rcu(__sb, __inode)		\
> > +{								\
> > +	struct list_head *list;					\
> > +	list = &(sb)->s_inodes;					\
> > +	list_for_each_entry_rcu((__inode), list, i_sb_list)
> > +
> > +#define while_inode_list_for_each_entry_rcu			\
> > +}
> > +
> > +#define do_inode_list_for_each_entry_safe(__sb, __inode, __tmp)	\
> > +{								\
> > +	struct list_head *list;					\
> > +	list = &(sb)->s_inodes;					\
> > +	list_for_each_entry_rcu((__inode), (__tmp), list, i_sb_list)
> > +
> > +#define while_inode_list_for_each_entry_safe			\
> > +}
> 
> I can't say that I'm a great fan of hiding loop context in defines
> like this. It reminds far too much of how parts of Irix slowly
> ossified because they ended up mess of complex, fragile macros that
> nobody fully understood...

It's not perfect. I think it is a lot better than open coding
(which I tried before) because that really muddies up the intention
of the loop body.

--
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/