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
 
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
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