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: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 07:49:06 -0400 From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org> To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>, 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: dont chain pipe/anon/socket on superblock s_inodes list On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 12:43:33PM +0200, Eric Dumazet wrote: > BTW, we have one atomic op that could be avoided in new_inode() > > spin_lock(&inode->i_lock); > inode->i_state = 0; > spin_unlock(&inode->i_lock); > > can probably be changed to something less expensive... > > inode->i_state = 0; > smp_wmb(); > > Not clear if we really need a memory barrier either.... I think we already had this in some of the earlier vfs/inode scale series, but it got lost when Al asked to just put the fundamental changes in. For plain new_inode() the barrier shouldn't be needed as we take the sb list lock just a little later. I'm not sure about your new variant, so I'll rather lave that to you. There's a few other things missing from earlier iterations, most notable the non-atomic i_count, and the bucket locks for the inode hash, if you're eager enough to look into that area. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists