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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 16:44:46 +1100 From: Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de> To: Vasily Averin <vvs@...ru> Cc: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>, Kirill Korotaev <dev@...ru>, devel@...nvz.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>, Kirill Korotaev <dev@...nvz.org>, Balbir Singh <balbir@...ibm.com>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Olaf Hering <olh@...e.de>, Jan Blunck <jblunck@...e.de> Subject: Re: [Devel] Re: [PATCH 2.6.19-rc3] VFS: per-sb dentry lru list On Wednesday November 1, vvs@...ru wrote: > > Currently we have 3 type of functions that works with dentry_unused list: > > 1) prune_dcache(NULL) -- called from shrink_dcache_memory, frees the memory and > requires global LRU. works well in current implementation. > 2) prune_dcache(sb) -- called from shrink_dcache_parent(), frees subtree, LRU > is not need here. Current implementation uses global LRU for these purposes, it > is ineffective, and patch from Neil Brown fixes this issue. > 3) shrink_dcache_sb() -- called when we need to free the unused dentries for > given super block. Current implementation is not effective too, and per-sb LRU > would be the best solution here. On the other hand patch from Neil Brown is much > better than current implementation. > > In general I think that we should approve Neil Brown's patch. We (I and Kirill > Korotaev) are ready to acknowledge it when the following remarks fill be fixed: > > - it seems for me list_splice() is not required inside > prune_dcache(), Yes, the list should be empty when we finish so you are right. > - DCACHE_REFERENCED dentries should not be removed from private list to > dentry_unused list, this flag should be ignored if the private list is used, Agreed. > - count argument should be ignored in this case too, we want to free all the > dentries in private list, Agreed. > - when we shrink the whole super block we should free per-sb anonymous dentries > too (please see Kirill Korotaev's letter) > Yes. Unfortunately I don't think it is as easy as it sounds. I'll have a closer look. > Then I'm going to prepare new patch that will enhance the shrink_dcache_sb() > performance: > - we can add new list head into struct superblock and use it in > shrink_dcache_sb() instead of temporal private list. We will check is it empty > in dput() and add the new unused dentries to per-sb list instead of > dentry_unused list. I think that makes sense. It means that you end up doing less work in select_parent, because the work has already been done in dput. How is the patch going? NeilBrown - 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