linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH v2 04/16] ext4: utilize multiple global goals to reduce contention

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: <5e02a1fb-8fdf-4523-8f51-9bcacfa74f1a@huawei.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2025 20:12:49 +0800
From: Baokun Li <libaokun1@...wei.com>
To: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
CC: <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>, <tytso@....edu>, <adilger.kernel@...ger.ca>,
	<ojaswin@...ux.ibm.com>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	<yi.zhang@...wei.com>, <yangerkun@...wei.com>, Baokun Li
	<libaokun1@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 04/16] ext4: utilize multiple global goals to reduce
 contention

On 2025/7/1 19:53, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Tue 01-07-25 11:32:23, Baokun Li wrote:
>> On 2025/7/1 1:41, Jan Kara wrote:
>>> On Mon 30-06-25 18:02:49, Baokun Li wrote:
>>>> On 2025/6/30 16:38, Jan Kara wrote:
>>>>> We could make streaming goal to be ext4_fsblk_t so that also offset of the
>>>>> last big allocation in the group is recorded as I wrote above. That would
>>>>> tend to pack big allocations in each group together which is benefitial to
>>>>> combat fragmentation even with higher proportion of groups that are streaming
>>>>> goals (and likely becomes more important as the blocksize and thus group
>>>>> size grow). We can discuss proper number of slots for streaming allocation
>>>>> (I'm not hung up on it being quarter of the group count) but I'm convinced
>>>>> sb->s_groups_count is too much :)
>>>>>
>>>>> 								Honza
>>>> I think sbi->s_groups_count / 4 is indeed acceptable. However, I don't
>>>> believe recording offsets is necessary. As groups become larger,
>>>> contention for groups will intensify, and adding offsets would only
>>>> make this contention worse.
>>> I agree the contention for groups will increase when the group count goes
>>> down. I just thought offsets may help to find free space faster in large
>>> groups (and thus reduce contention) and also reduce free space
>>> fragmentation within a group (by having higher chances of placing large
>>> allocations close together within a group) but maybe that's not the case.
>>> Offsets are definitely not requirement at this point.
>>>
>>> 								Honza
>>>
>> Thinking this over, with LBS support coming, if our block size jumps from
>> 4KB to 64KB, the maximum group size will dramatically increase from 128MB
>> to 32GB (even with the current 4GB group limit). If free space within a
>> group gets heavily fragmented, iterating through that single group could
>> become quite time-consuming.
>>
>> Your idea of recording offsets to prevent redundant scanning of
>> already-checked extents within a group definitely makes sense. But with
>> reference to the idea of optimizing linear traversal of groups, I think it
>> might be better to record the offset of the first occurrence of each order
>> in the same way that bb_counters records the number of each order.
> Yes, something like that makes sense. But I guess that's a material for the
> next patch set :)
>
> 								Honza

Yes, this isn't urgent right now. I plan to implement this idea after
the LBS patch set is complete.

Thank you very much for your review and patient explanations! 😀


Regards,
Baokun