linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH] fs: optimize inotify/fsnotify code for unwatched files

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 24 Jun 2015 10:29:21 -0700
From:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Dave Hansen <dave@...1.net>
Cc:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>, dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, jack@...e.cz, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk,
	eparis@...hat.com, john@...nmccutchan.com, rlove@...ve.org,
	tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] fs: optimize inotify/fsnotify code for unwatched
 files

On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 09:50:50AM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 06/22/2015 05:26 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > OK, here is an experimental patch that provides a fast-readers variant
> > of RCU, forward-ported from v3.3.  Because we didn't have call_srcu()
> > and srcu_barrier() back then, it is not a drop-in replacement for SRCU,
> > so you need to adapt the code to the API, which means putting an "fr"
> > in front of the "srcu" in the API members.
> > 
> > Understood on the overhead of the memory-barrier instruction showing
> > up consistently.  My point was instead that getting rid of this
> > memory-barrier instruction does not come for free, as it greatly
> > increases the latency of synchronize_frsrcu().  In a real workload,
> > it is entirely possible that the savings from eliminating the memory
> > barrier are overwhelmed by the increased grace-period latency.
> > 
> > Anyway, the patch is below.  Very lightly tested.
> 
> This does give a very similar performance boost as the other
> optimization I posted.  I measured this patch to boost the writes/second
> by 11.0% while my previous optimization did 10.8%.
> 
> I don't think this workload will see any of the overhead of the
> synchronize_frsrcu(), though, but this helps confirm the source of the
> overhead.

Thank you for testing it!  I agree that your patch is much simpler than
adding another flavor of RCU, so I prefer your patch, but the confirmation
is nevertheless valuable.

							Thanx, Paul

--
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/