linux-ext4 - Re: [RFC 08/11] ext4: Don't skip prefetching BLOCK

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: <20230309141422.b2nbl554ngna327k@quack3>
Date:   Thu, 9 Mar 2023 15:14:22 +0100
From:   Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
To:     Ojaswin Mujoo <ojaswin@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc:     linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>,
        Ritesh Harjani <riteshh@...ux.ibm.com>,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Ritesh Harjani <ritesh.list@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC 08/11] ext4: Don't skip prefetching BLOCK_UNINIT groups

On Fri 27-01-23 18:07:35, Ojaswin Mujoo wrote:
> Currently, ext4_mb_prefetch() and ext4_mb_prefetch_fini() skip
> BLOCK_UNINIT groups since fetching their bitmaps doesn't need disk IO.
> As a consequence, we end not initializing the buddy structures and CR0/1
> lists for these BGs, even though it can be done without any disk IO
> overhead. Hence, don't skip such BGs during prefetch and prefetch_fini.
> 
> This improves the accuracy of CR0/1 allocation as earlier, we could have
> essentially empty BLOCK_UNINIT groups being ignored by CR0/1 due to their buddy
> not being initialized, leading to slower CR2 allocations. With this patch CR0/1
> will be able to discover these groups as well, thus improving performance.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Ojaswin Mujoo <ojaswin@...ux.ibm.com>
> Reviewed-by: Ritesh Harjani (IBM) <ritesh.list@...il.com>

The patch looks good. I just somewhat wonder - this change may result in
uninitialized groups being initialized and used earlier (previously we'd
rather search in other already initialized groups) which may spread
allocations more. But I suppose that's fine and uninit groups are not
really a feature meant to limit fragmentation and as the filesystem ages
the differences should be minimal. So feel free to add:

Reviewed-by: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>

								Honza

> ---
>  fs/ext4/mballoc.c | 8 ++------
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/fs/ext4/mballoc.c b/fs/ext4/mballoc.c
> index 14529d2fe65f..48726a831264 100644
> --- a/fs/ext4/mballoc.c
> +++ b/fs/ext4/mballoc.c
> @@ -2557,9 +2557,7 @@ ext4_group_t ext4_mb_prefetch(struct super_block *sb, ext4_group_t group,
>  		 */
>  		if (!EXT4_MB_GRP_TEST_AND_SET_READ(grp) &&
>  		    EXT4_MB_GRP_NEED_INIT(grp) &&
> -		    ext4_free_group_clusters(sb, gdp) > 0 &&
> -		    !(ext4_has_group_desc_csum(sb) &&
> -		      (gdp->bg_flags & cpu_to_le16(EXT4_BG_BLOCK_UNINIT)))) {
> +		    ext4_free_group_clusters(sb, gdp) > 0 ) {
>  			bh = ext4_read_block_bitmap_nowait(sb, group, true);
>  			if (bh && !IS_ERR(bh)) {
>  				if (!buffer_uptodate(bh) && cnt)
> @@ -2600,9 +2598,7 @@ void ext4_mb_prefetch_fini(struct super_block *sb, ext4_group_t group,
>  		grp = ext4_get_group_info(sb, group);
>  
>  		if (EXT4_MB_GRP_NEED_INIT(grp) &&
> -		    ext4_free_group_clusters(sb, gdp) > 0 &&
> -		    !(ext4_has_group_desc_csum(sb) &&
> -		      (gdp->bg_flags & cpu_to_le16(EXT4_BG_BLOCK_UNINIT)))) {
> +		    ext4_free_group_clusters(sb, gdp) > 0) {
>  			if (ext4_mb_init_group(sb, group, GFP_NOFS))
>  				break;
>  		}
> -- 
> 2.31.1
> 
-- 
Jan Kara <jack@...e.com>
SUSE Labs, CR