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: <20190820160805.GB10232@mit.edu>
Date:   Tue, 20 Aug 2019 12:08:05 -0400
From:   "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>
To:     Joseph Qi <joseph.qi@...ux.alibaba.com>
Cc:     Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Joseph Qi <jiangqi903@...il.com>,
        Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
        Andreas Dilger <adilger@...ger.ca>,
        Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
        Xiaoguang Wang <xiaoguang.wang@...ux.alibaba.com>,
        Liu Bo <bo.liu@...ux.alibaba.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] performance regression with "ext4: Allow parallel DIO
 reads"

On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 11:00:39AM +0800, Joseph Qi wrote:
> 
> I've tested parallel dio reads with dioread_nolock, it doesn't have
> significant performance improvement and still poor compared with reverting
> parallel dio reads. IMO, this is because with parallel dio reads, it take
> inode shared lock at the very beginning in ext4_direct_IO_read().

Why is that a problem?  It's a shared lock, so parallel threads should
be able to issue reads without getting serialized?

Are you using sufficiently fast storage devices that you're worried
about cache line bouncing of the shared lock?  Or do you have some
other concern, such as some other thread taking an exclusive lock?

      	       	       	    	  	 - Ted

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ