linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH 0/5 v3] ext4: Fix performance regression with mballoc

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: <2eff8cbd-2d9c-0fb8-cfdb-31ce3534e466@i2se.com>
Date:   Sun, 11 Sep 2022 14:32:45 +0200
From:   Stefan Wahren <stefan.wahren@...e.com>
To:     Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Cc:     linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
        Thorsten Leemhuis <regressions@...mhuis.info>,
        Ojaswin Mujoo <ojaswin@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Harshad Shirwadkar <harshadshirwadkar@...il.com>,
        Ted Tso <tytso@....edu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5 v3] ext4: Fix performance regression with mballoc

Hi Jan,

Am 09.09.22 um 12:40 schrieb Jan Kara:
> On Thu 08-09-22 12:36:10, Stefan Wahren wrote:
>> Hi Jan,
>>
>> Am 08.09.22 um 11:21 schrieb Jan Kara:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> Here is the third version of my mballoc improvements to avoid spreading
>>> allocations with mb_optimize_scan=1. Since v2 there are only small changes and
>>> fixes found during review and testing. Overall the series looks mostly ready to
>>> go, I just didn't see any comments regarding patch 3 - a fix of metabg handling
>>> in the Orlov allocator which is kind of independent, I've just found it when
>>> reading the code. Also patch 5 needs final review after all the fixes.
>>>
>>> Changes since v1:
>>> - reworked data structure for CR 1 scan
>>> - make small closed files use locality group preallocation
>>> - fix metabg handling in the Orlov allocator
>>>
>>> Changes since v2:
>>> - whitespace fixes
>>> - fix outdated comment
>>> - fix handling of mb_structs_summary procfs file
>>> - fix bad unlock on error recovery path
>> unfortunately the real patches doesn't have v3 which leads to confusion.
> Yeah, OK, I've updated my scripting for posting patches to include version
> in each posted patch :)
>
>> Just a note: in case this series cannot be applied for stable (5.15), we
>> need a second solution to fix the regression there.
> My plan is to backport the current series. It is not that invasive so it
> should be doable...

This would be great.

Btw i retested this version and i can confirm the procfs crash is fixed.

>
> 								Honza