linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH RFC] jbd: don't wake kjournald unnecessarily

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:	Fri, 11 Jan 2013 13:06:27 -0600
From:	Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>
To:	Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
CC:	"Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
	ext4 development <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] jbd: don't wake kjournald unnecessarily

On 1/11/13 1:03 PM, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Fri 11-01-13 10:42:00, Eric Sandeen wrote:

...

>> TBH though, this is somewhat opposite of what I'd expect; I thought more
>> wakes might mean smaller transactions - except the wakes were "pointless"
>> - so I'm not quite sure what's going on yet.  We can certainly see the
>> difference, though, and that my change gets us back to the prior
>> behavior.
>   Yes, that's what I'd expect if the difference was really in IO. But
> apparently the benchmark is CPU bound on the machine and so the higher
> amount of work we do under j_state_lock (wake_up() has some small
> cost after all - it disables interrupts and takes q->lock) results in
> kjournald taking longer to wake and do its work. It might be interesting to
> know about how many useless wakeups are we speaking here?

Yeah, I want to get that next.

I think I'll need to instrument the module to get that, the fear is that
systemtap might have too much overhead (but I can try both ways).

Thanks,
-Eric

> 								Honza
> 

--
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