linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] xfs: use smaller int param in call to xfs_flush

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: <20080422041051.GT103491721@sgi.com>
Date:	Tue, 22 Apr 2008 14:10:51 +1000
From:	David Chinner <dgc@....com>
To:	Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...deen.net>
Cc:	Denys Vlasenko <vda.linux@...glemail.com>,
	David Chinner <dgc@....com>, Adrian Bunk <bunk@...nel.org>,
	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Shawn Bohrer <shawn.bohrer@...il.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfs: use smaller int param in call to xfs_flush_pages

On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 10:18:24PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> FWIW this one also seems to make no stack difference, at least on x86_64.
> 
> Not complaining; just checking it out. :)
> 
> If you can shink xfs_bmapi, let me know.  :)

FWIW, the path we care about is this path through ->writepage:

(submit_bio)
_xfs_buf_ioapply		32
xfs_buf_iorequest		0
xfs_buf_iostart			0
xfs_buf_read_flags		0
xfs_trans_read_buf		4
xfs_btree_read_bufs		16
xfs_alloc_lookup		56
xfs_alloc_lookup_eq		16
xfs_alloc_fixup_trees		20
xfs_alloc_ag_vextent_near	76
xfs_alloc_ag_vextent		0
xfs_alloc_vextent		48
xfs_bmap_btalloc		164
xfs_bmap_alloc			0
xfs_bmapi			228
xfs_iomap_write_allocate	116
xfs_iomap			20
xfs_map_blocks			16
xfs_page_state_convert		124
xfs_vm_writepage		12
-------------------------------------
checkstack total:		948

Realistically, the onyl thing we can trim anything off is xfs_bmapi,
xfs_bmap_btalloc, xfs_iomap_write_allocate, and xfs_page_state_convert.
It's going to take a lot of work to get any significant change into
those functions given the complexity of them....

FWIW, if we've come through a syscall, the rest of the trace looks
like:

__writepage				0
write_cache_pages			100
generic_writepages			0
xfs_vm_writepages			12
do_writepages				0
__writeback_single_inode		36
sync_sb_inodes				40
writeback_inodes			0
balance_dirty_pages_ratelimited_nr	76
generic_file_buffered_write		96
xfs_write				80
xfs_file_aio_write			12
do_sync_write				140
vfs_write				12
--------------------------------------------
total					604

So the normal case uses 604 bytes prior to entering ->writepage.

It's when we are already using >2k of the stack when we enter
->writepage that we get into trouble....

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
Principal Engineer
SGI Australian Software Group
--
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/