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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20140520135723.GB15177@thunk.org> Date: Tue, 20 May 2014 09:57:23 -0400 From: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu> To: Thavatchai Makphaibulchoke <thavatchai.makpahibulchoke@...com> Cc: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] ext4: Reduce contention on s_orphan_lock On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 02:33:23AM -0600, Thavatchai Makphaibulchoke wrote: > Please see my one comment below. > > BTW, I've run aim7 on your before I notice what I commented below. There are workloads that my patch outperform yours and vice versa. I will have to redo it over again. Thavatchai, it would be really great if you could do lock_stat runs with both Jan's latest patches as well as yours. We need to understand where the differences are coming from. As I understand things, there are two differences between Jan and your approaches. The first is that Jan is using the implicit locking of i_mutex to avoid needing to keep a hashed array of mutexes to synchronize an individual inode's being added or removed to the orphan list. The second is that you've split the orphan mutex into an on-disk mutex and a in-memory spinlock. Is it possible to split up your patch so we can measure the benefits of each of these two changes? More interestingly, is there a way we can use the your second change in concert with Jan's changes? Regards, - Ted -- 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