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  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:	Mon, 18 Apr 2011 14:32:08 +0900
From:	Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>
To:	Dan Magenheimer <dan.magenheimer@...cle.com>
Cc:	OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@...l.parknet.co.jp>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk,
	adilger.kernel@...ger.ca, tytso@....edu, mfasheh@...e.com,
	jlbec@...lplan.org, matthew@....cx, linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, ocfs2-devel@....oracle.com,
	linux-mm@...ck.org, hch@...radead.org, ngupta@...are.org,
	jeremy@...p.org, JBeulich@...ell.com,
	Kurt Hackel <kurt.hackel@...cle.com>, npiggin@...nel.dk,
	Dave Mccracken <dave.mccracken@...cle.com>, riel@...hat.com,
	avi@...hat.com, Konrad Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
	mel@....ul.ie, yinghan@...gle.com, gthelen@...gle.com,
	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V8 4/8] mm/fs: add hooks to support cleancache

On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 3:53 AM, Dan Magenheimer
<dan.magenheimer@...cle.com> wrote:
>> From: OGAWA Hirofumi [mailto:hirofumi@...l.parknet.co.jp]
>>
>> Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> writes:
>>
>> >> > Before I suggested a thing about cleancache_flush_page,
>> >> > cleancache_flush_inode.
>> >> >
>> >> > what's the meaning of flush's semantic?
>> >> > I thought it means invalidation.
>> >> > AFAIC, how about change flush with invalidate?
>> >>
>> >> I'm not sure the words "flush" and "invalidate" are defined
>> >> precisely or used consistently everywhere in computer
>> >> science, but I think that "invalidate" is to destroy
>> >> a "pointer" to some data, but not necessarily destroy the
>> >> data itself.   And "flush" means to actually remove
>> >> the data.  So one would "invalidate a mapping" but one
>> >> would "flush a cache".
>> >>
>> >> Since cleancache_flush_page and cleancache_flush_inode
>> >> semantically remove data from cleancache, I think flush
>> >> is a better name than invalidate.
>> >>
>> >> Does that make sense?
>> >
>> > nope ;)
>> >
>> > Kernel code freely uses "flush" to refer to both invalidation and to
>> > writeback, sometimes in confusing ways.  In this case,
>> > cleancache_flush_inode and cleancache_flush_page rather sound like
>> they
>> > might write those things to backing store.
>>
>> I'd like to mention about *_{get,put}_page too. In linux get/put is not
>> meaning read/write. There is {get,put}_page those are refcount stuff
>> (Yeah, and I felt those methods does refcount by quick read. But it
>> seems to be false. There is no xen codes, so I don't know actually
>> though.).
>>
>> And I agree, I also think the needing thing is consistency on the linux
>> codes (term).
>>
>> Thanks.
>> --
>> OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@...l.parknet.co.jp>
>
> Hmmm, yes, that's a point of confusion also.  No, cleancache put/get
> do not have any relationship with reference counting.
>
> Andrew, I wonder if you would be so kind as to read the following
> and make a "ruling".  If you determine a preferable set of names,
> I will abide by your decision and repost (if necessary).
>
> The problem is this: The English language has a limited number
> of words that can be used to represent data motion and mapping
> and most/all of them are already used in the kernel, often,
> to quote Andrew, "in confusing ways."  Complicating this, I
> think the semantics of the cleancache operations are different
> from the semantics of any other kernel operation... intentionally
> so, because the value of cleancache is a direct result of those
> differing semantics.  And the cleancache semantics
> are fairly complex (again intentionally) so a single function
> name can't possibly describe the semantics.
>
> The cleancache operations are:
> - put (page)
> - get (page)
> - flush page
> - flush inode
> - init fs
> - flush fs
>
> I think these names are reasonable representations of the
> semantics of the operations performed... but I'm not a kernel
> expert so there is certainly room for disagreement.  Though I
> absolutely recognize the importance of a "name", I am primarily
> interested in merging the semantics of the operations and
> would happily accept any name that kernel developers could
> agree on.  However, I fear that there will be NO name that
> will satisfy all, so would prefer to keep the existing names.
> If some renaming is eventually agreed upon, this could be done
> post-merge.
>
> Here's a brief description of the semantics:
>
> The cleancache operation currently known as "put" has the
> following semantics:  If *possible*, please take the data
> contained in the pageframe referred to by this struct page
> into cleancache and associate it with the filesystem-determined
> "handle" derived from the struct page.
>
> The cleancache operation currently known as "get" has the
> following semantics:  Derive the filesystem-determined handle
> from this struct page.  If cleancache contains a page matching
> that handle, recreate the page of data from cleancache and
> place the results in the pageframe referred to by the
> struct page.  Then delete in cleancache any record of the
> handle and any data associated with it, so that a
> subsequent "get" will no longer find a match for the handle;
> any space used for the data can also be freed.
>
> (Note that "take the data" and "recreate the page of data" are
> similar in semantics to "copy to" and "copy from", but since
> the cleancache operation may perform an "inflight" transformation
> on the data, and "copy" usually means a byte-for-byte replication,
> the word "copy" is also misleading.)
>
> The cleancache operation currently known as "flush" has the
> following semantics:  Derive the filesystem-determined handle
> from this struct page and struct mapping.  If cleancache
> contains a page matching that handle, delete in cleancache any
> record of the handle and any data associated with it, so that a
> subsequent "get" will no longer find a match for the handle;
> any space used for the data can also be freed
>
> The cleancache operation currently known as "flush inode" has
> the following semantics: Derive the filesystem-determined filekey
> from this struct mapping.  If cleancache contains ANY handles
> matching that filekey, delete in cleancache any record of
> any matching handle and any data associated with those handles;
> any space used for the data can also be freed.
>
> The cleancache operation currently known as "init fs" has
> the following semantics: Create a unique poolid to refer
> to this filesystem and save it in the superblock's
> cleancache_poolid field.
>
> The cleancache operation currently known as "flush fs" has
> the following semantics: Get the cleancache_poolid field
> from this superblock.  If cleancache contains ANY handles
> associated with that poolid, delete in cleancache any
> record of any matching handles and any data associated with
> those handles; any space used for the data can also be freed.
> Also, set the superblock's cleancache_poolid to be invalid
> and, in cleancache, recycle the poolid so a subsequent init_fs
> operation can reuse it.
>
> That's all!
>
> Thanks,
> Dan
>

At least, I didn't confused your semantics except just flush. That's
why I suggested only flush but after seeing your explaining, there is
another thing I want to change. The get/put is common semantic of
reference counting in kernel but in POV your semantics, it makes sense
to me but get has a exclusive semantic so I want to represent it with
API name. Maybe cleancache_get_page_exclusive.

The summary is that I don't want to change all API name. Just two thing.
(I am not sure you and others agree on me. It's just suggestion).

1. cleancache_flush_page -> cleancache_[invalidate|remove]_page
2. cleancache_get_page -> cleancache_get_page_exclusive

BTW, Nice description.
Please include it in documentation if we can't reach the conclusion.
It will help others to understand semantic of cleancache.

Thanks, Dan.

-- 
Kind regards,
Minchan Kim
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" 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