linux-ext4 - Re: ext4-block-reservation.patch

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 19 Jun 2007 22:46:48 +0530
From:	"Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	"Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
CC:	Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>, alex@...sterfs.com,
	linux-ext4 <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: ext4-block-reservation.patch



Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
> 
> 
> Eric Sandeen wrote:
>> Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> In block reservation code while rebalancing the free blocks why are 
>>> we not looking at the reservation slots that have no free blocks 
>>> left.  Rebalancing
>>> the free blocks equally across all the reservation slots will make sure
>>> we have less chances of failure later when we try to reserve blocks.
>>>
>>> I understand that we consider the CPU slot on which reservation 
>>> failed while
>>> rebalancing. But what is preventing considering other CPU slot that 
>>> might have
>>> zero blocks left ?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> +void ext4_rebalance_reservation(struct ext4_reservation_slot *rs, 
>>> __u64 free)
>>> +{
>>> +       int i, used_slots = 0;
>>> +       __u64 chunk;
>>> +
>>> +       /* let's know what slots have been used */
>>> +       for (i = 0; i < NR_CPUS; i++)
>>
>> BTW... I think you really want:
>>
>>   +       for_each_possible_cpu(i) {
>>
>> in this and other similar places.
>>
>> NR_CPUS is a config-time option that may be much more than your actual
>> count of runtime possible CPUs... on ia64 it's 512 by default, for
>> example.  That's a lot of pointlessness on a 2, 4 or 8 cpu box :)
>>
>> I can whip up a proper patch for current code to send (again)...
>>
> 
> This is what i have modified. I am yet to build test it. I am looking at 
> forward porting the
> mballoc patches and was planning to send it together.
> 

I build tested the patch. I guess we need the below small patch on top of the previous
patch.


-aneesh

View attachment "k" of type "text/plain" (433 bytes)