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: Thu, 28 Jul 2011 06:41:09 +0200 From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org> Cc: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>, Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>, Anton Blanchard <anton@...ba.org>, npiggin@...nel.dk, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH] vfs: avoid taking locks if inode not in lists Le mercredi 27 juillet 2011 à 16:44 -0400, Christoph Hellwig a écrit : > On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 05:21:05PM +0200, Eric Dumazet wrote: > > If I am not mistaken, we can add unlocked checks on the three hot spots. > > > > After following patch, a close(socket(PF_INET, SOCK_DGRAM, 0)) pair on > > my dev machine takes ~3us instead of ~9us. > > > > Maybe its better to split it in three patches, just let me know. > > I think three patches would be a lot cleaner. > > As for safety of the unlocked checks: > > - inode are either hashed when created or never, so that one looks > fine. > - same for the sb list. > - the writeback list is a bit more dynamic as we move things around > quite a bit. But in additon to the inode_wb_list_del call from > evict() it only ever gets remove in writeback_single_inode, which > for a freeing inode can only be called from the callers of evict(). > > Btw, I wonder if you should micro-optimize things a bit further by > moving the unhashed checks from the deletion functions into the callers > and thus save a function call for each of them. > What about following patch, addressing the micro-optimization and Andi Kleen concern about evict() readability ? Thanks ! [PATCH] vfs: avoid taking inode_hash_lock on pipes and sockets Some inodes (pipes, sockets, ...) are not hashed, no need to take contended inode_hash_lock at dismantle time. nice speedup on SMP machines on socket intensive workloads. Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> --- fs/inode.c | 6 +++--- include/linux/fs.h | 9 ++++++++- 2 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/fs/inode.c b/fs/inode.c index d0c72ff..73b5598 100644 --- a/fs/inode.c +++ b/fs/inode.c @@ -399,12 +399,12 @@ void __insert_inode_hash(struct inode *inode, unsigned long hashval) EXPORT_SYMBOL(__insert_inode_hash); /** - * remove_inode_hash - remove an inode from the hash + * __remove_inode_hash - remove an inode from the hash * @inode: inode to unhash * * Remove an inode from the superblock. */ -void remove_inode_hash(struct inode *inode) +void __remove_inode_hash(struct inode *inode) { spin_lock(&inode_hash_lock); spin_lock(&inode->i_lock); @@ -412,7 +412,7 @@ void remove_inode_hash(struct inode *inode) spin_unlock(&inode->i_lock); spin_unlock(&inode_hash_lock); } -EXPORT_SYMBOL(remove_inode_hash); +EXPORT_SYMBOL(__remove_inode_hash); void end_writeback(struct inode *inode) { diff --git a/include/linux/fs.h b/include/linux/fs.h index f23bcb7..786b3b1 100644 --- a/include/linux/fs.h +++ b/include/linux/fs.h @@ -2317,11 +2317,18 @@ extern int should_remove_suid(struct dentry *); extern int file_remove_suid(struct file *); extern void __insert_inode_hash(struct inode *, unsigned long hashval); -extern void remove_inode_hash(struct inode *); static inline void insert_inode_hash(struct inode *inode) { __insert_inode_hash(inode, inode->i_ino); } + +extern void __remove_inode_hash(struct inode *); +static inline void remove_inode_hash(struct inode *inode) +{ + if (!inode_unhashed(inode)) + __remove_inode_hash(inode); +} + extern void inode_sb_list_add(struct inode *inode); #ifdef CONFIG_BLOCK -- 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