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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <87poohcq96.fsf@dmlp.Dlink>
Date:   Tue, 06 Sep 2016 12:49:09 +0300
From:   Dmitry Monakhov <dmonakhov@...nvz.org>
To:     Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
Cc:     Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ext4: improve ext4lazyinit scalability V2

Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz> writes:

> 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.
Yes. That is correct. Simply last hank shoul not be deleted.

Theodore, please fold patch attached to original one.

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (473 bytes)

View attachment "lazy-init-v2-update-next-sched.patch" of type "text/x-patch" (361 bytes)



>
> 								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