linux-kernel - Re: Inode Lock Scalability V7 (was V6)

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:	Fri, 22 Oct 2010 13:48:34 +1100
From:	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...nel.dk>
To:	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...nel.dk>
Cc:	Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>,
	Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Inode Lock Scalability V7 (was V6)

On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 01:41:52PM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> The locking in my lock break patch is ugly and wrong, yes. But it is
> always an intermediate step. I want to argue that with RCU inode work
> *anyway*, there is not much point to reducing the strength of the
> i_lock property because locking can be cleaned up nicely and still
> keep i_lock ~= inode_lock (for a single inode).

The other thing is that with RCU, the idea of locking an object in
the data structure with a per object lock actually *is* much more
natural. It's hard to do it properly with just a big data structure
lock.

If I want to take a reference to an inode from a data structre, how
to do it with RCU?

rcu_read_lock()
list_for_each(inode) {
  spin_lock(&big_lock); /* oops, might as well not even use RCU then */
  if (!unhashed) {
    iget();
  }
}


--
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/