| 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
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2011 10:20:12 +0900
From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
To: Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>
Cc: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>,
Andreas Dilger <adilger@...ger.ca>,
Justin TerAvest <teravest@...gle.com>,
m-ikeda <m-ikeda@...jp.nec.com>, jaxboe <jaxboe@...ionio.com>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
ryov <ryov@...inux.co.jp>, taka <taka@...inux.co.jp>,
"righi.andrea" <righi.andrea@...il.com>,
guijianfeng <guijianfeng@...fujitsu.com>,
balbir <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
ctalbott <ctalbott@...gle.com>, nauman <nauman@...gle.com>,
mrubin <mrubin@...gle.com>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] Storing cgroup id in page->private (Was: Re: [RFC] [PATCH
0/6] Provide cgroup isolation for buffered writes.)
On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 16:43:31 -0500
Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com> wrote:
> Excerpts from Vivek Goyal's message of 2011-03-10 16:38:32 -0500:
> > On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 02:24:07PM -0700, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> > > On 2011-03-10, at 2:15 PM, Chris Mason wrote:
> > > > Excerpts from Vivek Goyal's message of 2011-03-10 14:41:06 -0500:
> > > >> On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 02:11:15PM -0500, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> > > >>>>> I think the person who dirtied the page can store the information in
> > > >>>>> page->private (assuming buffer heads were not generated) and if flusher
> > > >>>>> thread later ends up generating buffer heads and ends up modifying
> > > >>>>> page->private, this can be copied in buffer heads?
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> This scares me a bit.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> As I understand it, fs/ code expects total ownership of page->private.
> > > >>>> This adds a responsibility for every user to copy the data through and
> > > >>>> store it in the buffer head (or anything else). btrfs seems to do
> > > >>>> something entirely different in some cases and store a different kind
> > > >>>> of value.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> If filesystems are using page->private for some other purpose also, then
> > > >>> I guess we have issues.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> I am ccing linux-fsdevel to have some feedback on the idea of trying
> > > >>> to store cgroup id of page dirtying thread in page->private and/or buffer
> > > >>> head for tracking which group originally dirtied the page in IO controller
> > > >>> during writeback.
> > > >>
> > > >> A quick "grep" showed that btrfs, ceph and logfs are using page->private
> > > >> for other purposes also.
> > > >>
> > > >> I was under the impression that either page->private is null or it
> > > >> points to buffer heads for the writeback case. So storing the info
> > > >> directly in either buffer head directly or first in page->private and
> > > >> then transferring it to buffer heads would have helped.
> > > >
> > > > Right, btrfs has its own uses for page->private, and we expect to own
> > > > it. With a proper callback, the FS could store the extra information you
> > > > need in out own structs.
> > >
> > > There is no requirement that page->private ever points to a buffer_head, and Lustre clients use it for its own tracking structure (never touching buffer_heads at all). Any assumption about what a filesystem is storing in page->private in other parts of the code is just broken.
> >
> > Andreas,
> >
> > As Chris mentioned, will providing callbacks so that filesystem can
> > save/restore page->private be reasonable?
>
> Just to clarify, I think saving/restoring page->private is going to be
> hard. I'd rather just have a call back that says here's a page, storage
> this for the block io controller please, and another one that returns
> any previously stored info.
>
Hmm, Vivek,
for dynamic allocation of io-record, how about this kind of tagging ?
(just an idea. not compiled at all.)
Pros.
- much better than consuming 2bytes for all pages including pages other
than file caches.
- this will allow lockless lookup of iotag.
- setting iotag can be done at the same time PAGECACHE_TAG_DIRTY...
no extra lock will be required.
- At clearing, we can expect lock for radix-tree is already held.
Cons.
- makes radix-tree struct larger and not good for cacheline.
- some special care? will be required at page-migration.
==
@@ -51,6 +51,9 @@ struct radix_tree_node {
struct rcu_head rcu_head;
void __rcu *slots[RADIX_TREE_MAP_SIZE];
unsigned long tags[RADIX_TREE_MAX_TAGS][RADIX_TREE_TAG_LONGS];
+#ifdef CONFIG_BLK_CGROUP
+ unsigned short iotag[RADIX_TREE_MAP_SIZE];
+#endif
};
struct radix_tree_path {
@@ -487,6 +490,36 @@ void *radix_tree_tag_set(struct radix_tr
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL(radix_tree_tag_set);
+#ifdef CONFIG_BLK_CGROUP
+void *radix_tree_iotag_set(struct radix_tree_root *root,
+ unsigned long index, unsigned short tag)
+{
+ unsigned int height, shift;
+ struct radix_tree_node *node;
+
+ height = root->height;
+ BUG_ON(index > radix_tree_maxindex(height));
+
+ node = indirect_to_ptr(root->rnode);
+ shift = (height - 1) * RADIX_TREE_MAP_SHIFT;
+
+ while (height > 0) {
+ int offset;
+
+ offset = (index >> shift) & RADIX_TREE_MAP_MASK;
+ node = node->slots[offset];
+ BUG(!node);
+ shift -= RADIX_TREE_MAP_SHIFT;
+ height--;
+ }
+ node->iotag[offset] = tag;
+
+ return;
+}
+EXPORT_SYMBOL(radix_tree_iotag_set);
+
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists