linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 0/3] ext4: increase mbcache scalability

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:	Fri, 24 Jan 2014 18:13:14 -0700
From:	Thavatchai Makphaibulchoke <thavatchai.makpahibulchoke@...com>
To:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, T Makphaibulchoke <tmac@...com>
CC:	viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, tytso@....edu, adilger.kernel@...ger.ca,
	linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, aswin@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/3] ext4: increase mbcache scalability

On 01/24/2014 02:38 PM, Andi Kleen wrote:
> T Makphaibulchoke <tmac@...com> writes:
> 
>> The patch consists of three parts.
>>
>> The first part changes the implementation of both the block and hash chains of
>> an mb_cache from list_head to hlist_bl_head and also introduces new members,
>> including a spinlock to mb_cache_entry, as required by the second part.
> 
> spinlock per entry is usually overkill for larger hash tables.
> 
> Can you use a second smaller lock table that just has locks and is 
> indexed by a subset of the hash key. Most likely a very small 
> table is good enough.
> 
> Also I would be good to have some data on the additional memory consumption.
> 
> -Andi
> 

Thanks Andi for the comments.  Will look into that.

Thanks,
Mak.

--
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/