linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH] ext4: improve ext4lazyinit scalability V2

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

Message-ID: <20160906083608.GB28922@quack2.suse.cz>
Date:   Tue, 6 Sep 2016 10:36:08 +0200
From:   Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
To:     Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
Cc:     Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Dmitry Monakhov <dmonakhov@...nvz.org>,
        linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ext4: improve ext4lazyinit scalability V2

On Mon 05-09-16 23:39:54, Ted Tso wrote:
> Dmitry, thanks for the patch, and Jan, thanks for the review.
> 
> This is what I've added to the ext4 tree, which should reflect all of
> the comments which Jan made.

Hum, one comment still:

> +			if (down_read_trylock(&elr->lr_super->s_umount)) {
> +				if (sb_start_write_trylock(elr->lr_super)) {
> +					progress = 1;
> +					/*
> +					 * We hold sb->s_umount, sb can not
> +					 * be removed from the list, it is
> +					 * now safe to drop li_list_mtx
> +					 */
> +					mutex_unlock(&eli->li_list_mtx);
> +					err = ext4_run_li_request(elr);
> +					sb_end_write(elr->lr_super);
> +					mutex_lock(&eli->li_list_mtx);
> +					n = pos->next;
>  				}
> +				up_read((&elr->lr_super->s_umount));
> +			}
> +			/* error, remove the lazy_init job */
> +			if (err) {
> +				ext4_remove_li_request(elr);
> +				continue;
> +			}
> +			if (!progress) {
> +				elr->lr_next_sched = jiffies +
> +					(prandom_u32()
> +					 % (EXT4_DEF_LI_MAX_START_DELAY * HZ));
> +				if (time_before(elr->lr_next_sched,
> +						next_wakeup))
> +					next_wakeup = elr->lr_next_sched;
>  			}
> -
> -			if (time_before(elr->lr_next_sched, next_wakeup))
> -				next_wakeup = elr->lr_next_sched;
>  		}

ext4_run_li_request() can also update elr->lr_next_sched. So we need to
update next_wakeup even in progress == 1 case (i.e., I'd leave the update
of next_wakeup as is in the old code...). Otherwise the patch looks good.

								Honza
-- 
Jan Kara <jack@...e.com>
SUSE Labs, CR
--
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