linux-kernel - Re: [ckrm-tech] [RFC][PATCH 2/7] UBC: core (structures, API)

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <1155955116.2510.445.camel@stark>
Date:	Fri, 18 Aug 2006 19:38:36 -0700
From:	Matt Helsley <matthltc@...ibm.com>
To:	Kirill Korotaev <dev@...ru>
Cc:	"Chandra S. Seetharaman" <sekharan@...ibm.com>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	CKRM-Tech <ckrm-tech@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	Andrey Savochkin <saw@...ru>, devel@...nvz.org,
	hugh@...itas.com, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Pavel Emelianov <xemul@...nvz.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>
Subject: Re: [ckrm-tech] [RFC][PATCH 2/7] UBC: core (structures, API)

On Fri, 2006-08-18 at 15:36 +0400, Kirill Korotaev wrote:
> Matt Helsley wrote:

<snip>

> >>+		spin_unlock_irqrestore(&ub_hash_lock, flags);
> >>+		return;
> >>+	}
> >>+
> >>+	verify_held(ub);
> >>+	hlist_del(&ub->hash);
> >>+	spin_unlock_irqrestore(&ub_hash_lock, flags);
> >>+
> >>+	kmem_cache_free(ub_cachep, ub);
> >>+
> >>+	ub = parent;
> >>+	if (ub != NULL)
> >>+		goto again;
> > 
> > 
> > Couldn't this be replaced by a do { } while (ub != NULL); loop?
> this is ugly from indentation POV. also restarts are frequently used everywhere...

Then perhaps the body could be made into a small function or set of
functions.

I know the retry pattern is common. Though, as I remember it the control
flow was much more complex when goto was used for retry. Also, I seem to
recall do {} while () has favorable properties that goto lacks when it
comes to compiler optimization.

<snip>

> >>+int charge_beancounter(struct user_beancounter *ub,
> >>+		int resource, unsigned long val, enum severity strict)
> >>+{
> >>+	int retval;
> >>+	struct user_beancounter *p, *q;
> >>+	unsigned long flags;
> >>+
> >>+	retval = -EINVAL;
> >>+	BUG_ON(val > UB_MAXVALUE);
> >>+
> >>+	local_irq_save(flags);
> > 
> > 
> > <factor>
> > 
> >>+	for (p = ub; p != NULL; p = p->parent) {
> > 
> > 
> > Seems rather expensive to walk up the tree for every charge. Especially
> > if the administrator wants a fine degree of resource control and makes a
> > tall tree. This would be a problem especially when it comes to resources
> > that require frequent and fast allocation.
> in heirarchical accounting you always have to update all the nodes :/
> with flat UBC this doesn't introduce significant overhead.

Except that you eventually have to lock ub0. Seems that the cache line
for that spinlock could bounce quite a bit in such a hot path.

Chandra, doesn't Resource Groups avoid walking more than 1 level up the
hierarchy in the "charge" paths?

> >>+		spin_lock(&p->ub_lock);
> >>+		retval = __charge_beancounter_locked(p, resource, val, strict);
> >>+		spin_unlock(&p->ub_lock);
> >>+		if (retval)
> >>+			goto unroll;
> > 
> > 
> > This can be factored by passing a flag that breaks the loop on an error:
> > 
> > 		if (retval && do_break_err)
> > 			return retval;
> how about uncharge here?
> didn't get your idea, sorry...

	The only structural difference between this loop and another you have
is the "break" here. I was saying that you could pass a parameter into
the factored portion that tells it to return early if there is an error.

Cheers,
	-Matt Helsley

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/