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]
Date:	Mon, 30 Oct 2006 17:24:22 +0300
From:	Vasily Averin <vvs@...ru>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>
CC:	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>, Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de>,
	Jan Blunck <jblunck@...e.de>, Olaf Hering <olh@...e.de>,
	Balbir Singh <balbir@...ibm.com>,
	Kirill Korotaev <dev@...nvz.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	devel@...nvz.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2.6.19-rc3] VFS: per-sb dentry lru list

Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 18:05:50 +0400
> Vasily Averin <vvs@...ru> wrote:
> 
>> Virtuozzo/OpenVZ linux kernel team has discovered that umount/remount can last
>> for hours looping in shrink_dcache_sb() without much successes. Since during
>> shrinking s_umount semaphore is taken lots of other unrelated operations like
>> sync can stop working until shrink finished.
> 
> Did you consider altering shrink_dcache_sb() so that it holds onto
> dcache_lock and moves all the to-be-pruned dentries onto a private list in
> a single pass, then prunes them all outside the lock?

At the first glance it is wrong because of 2 reasons:
1) it continues to check the whole global LRU list (we propose to use per-sb
LRU, it will provide very quick search)
2) we have not any guarantee that someone will add new unused dentries to the
list when we prune it outside the lock. And to the contrary, some of unused
dentries can be used again. As far as I understand we should hold dcache_lock
beginning at the removing dentry from unused_list until dentry_iput() call.

David did it inside shrink_dcache_for_umount() just because it have guarantee
that all the filesystem operations are finished and new ones cannot be started.

Thank you,
	Vasily Averin
-
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/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ