linux-kernel - Re: rename() contention (BUG?)

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: <454101D6.9050004@argo.co.il>
Date:	Thu, 26 Oct 2006 20:43:34 +0200
From:	Avi Kivity <avi@...o.co.il>
To:	Josef Sipek <jsipek@....cs.sunysb.edu>
CC:	lkml@...garu.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: rename() contention (BUG?)

Josef Sipek wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 03:56:34PM -0500, lkml@...garu.com wrote:
>   
>> Hello,
>>
>> I have seen some scalability problems with Maildir-based mail systems running on
>> Linux (debian sarge, 2.6.8), and after much investigation I found a large part
>> of the problem was rename() contention.
>>     
>  
> Just FYI, around 2.6.15 the i_sem was replace with i_mutex which is much
> better/faster. (And I would strongly suggest you upgrade.) I would actually
> like to know how much the lock contention decresed for your case.
>   

The changes make the mutex more efficient, but won't decrease the 
contention.  It seems that all renames in one filesystem are serialized, 
and if the renames require I/O (which is certainly the case with nfs), 
rename throughput is severely limited.


-- 
Do not meddle in the internals of kernels, for they are subtle and quick to panic.

-
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/