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  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Tue, 12 Jan 2021 19:45:06 +0800
From:   Xiaoguang Wang <>
To:     Ext4 Developers List <>
Cc:     joseph qi <>
Subject: code questions about ext4_inode_datasync_dirty()


I use io_uring to evaluate ext4 randread performance(direct io), observed
obvious overhead in jbd2_transaction_committed():
Samples: 124K of event 'cycles:ppp', Event count (approx.): 80630088951
Overhead  Command          Shared Object      Symbol
    7.02%  io_uring-sq-per  [kernel.kallsyms]  [k] jbd2_transaction_committed

The codes:
	 * Writes that span EOF might trigger an I/O size update on completion,
	 * so consider them to be dirty for the purpose of O_DSYNC, even if
	 * there is no other metadata changes being made or are pending.
	iomap->flags = 0;
	if (ext4_inode_datasync_dirty(inode) ||
	    offset + length > i_size_read(inode))
		iomap->flags |= IOMAP_F_DIRTY;

ext4_inode_datasync_dirty() calls jbd2_transaction_committed(). Sorry, I don't spend
much time to learn iomap codes yet, just ask a quick question here. Do we need to call
ext4_inode_datasync_dirty() for a read operation?

If we must call ext4_inode_datasync_dirty() for a read operation, can we improve
jbd2_transaction_committed() a bit, for example, have a quick check between
inode->i_datasync_tid and j_commit_sequence, if inode->i_datasync_tid is less than
or equal to j_commit_sequence, we also don't call jbd2_transaction_committed()?

Xiaoguang Wang

Powered by blists - more mailing lists