linux-ext4 - Re: Kernel Benchmarking

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]

Date:   Fri, 18 Sep 2020 02:39:50 +0200
From:   Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@...il.com>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        Michael Larabel <Michael@...haellarabel.com>,
        Matthieu Baerts <matthieu.baerts@...sares.net>,
        Amir Goldstein <amir73il@...il.com>,
        "Ted Ts'o" <tytso@...gle.com>,
        Andreas Dilger <adilger.kernel@...ger.ca>,
        Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
        Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Kernel Benchmarking

On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 10:00 PM Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 12:27 PM Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org> wrote:
> >
> > Ah, I see what you mean.  Hold the i_mmap_rwsem for write across,
> > basically, the entirety of truncate_inode_pages_range().
>
> I really suspect that will be entirely unacceptable for latency
> reasons, but who knows. In practice, nobody actually truncates a file
> _while_ it's mapped, that's just crazy talk.
>
> But almost every time I go "nobody actually does this", I tend to be
> surprised by just how crazy some loads are, and it turns out that
> _somebody_ does it, and has a really good reason for doing odd things,
> and has been doing it for years because it worked really well and
> solved some odd problem.
>
> So the "hold it for the entirety of truncate_inode_pages_range()"
> thing seems to be a really simple approach, and nice and clean, but it
> makes me go "*somebody* is going to do bad things and complain about
> page fault latencies".
>

Hi,

I followed this thread a bit and see there is now a...

commit 5ef64cc8987a9211d3f3667331ba3411a94ddc79
"mm: allow a controlled amount of unfairness in the page lock"

By first reading I saw...

+ *  (a) no special bits set:
...
+ *  (b) WQ_FLAG_EXCLUSIVE:
...
+ *  (b) WQ_FLAG_EXCLUSIVE | WQ_FLAG_CUSTOM:

The last one should be (c).

There was a second typo I cannot remember when you sent your patch
without a commit message.

Will look again.

Thanks and Greetings,
- Sedat -