linux-kernel - Re: [patch] aio: invalidate async directio writes

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: <485A95FE.9080308@oracle.com>
Date:	Thu, 19 Jun 2008 10:23:10 -0700
From:	Zach Brown <zach.brown@...cle.com>
To:	Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com>
CC:	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-aio@...ck.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch] aio: invalidate async directio writes


> +static DECLARE_WORK(aio_complete_work, aio_complete_fn, NULL);
> +static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(iocb_completion_list_lock);
> +static LIST_HEAD(iocb_completion_list);

It seems like a bad idea to funnel all AIO DIO completion in the system
through one cacheline.  Should we have per-cpu lists and work structs?

> +			unsigned long flags;
> +			spin_lock_irqsave(&iocb_completion_list_lock, flags);
> +			list_add(&dio->done_list, &iocb_completion_list);
> +			spin_unlock_irqrestore(&iocb_completion_list_lock, flags);
> +			schedule_work(&aio_complete_work);

And we should probably use list_add_tail() here so that we don't reverse
 the order of IO completion and end_io() callbacks.

And hopefully going per-cpu could simplify the locking so that we don't
have even more per-io locking.

- z
--
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/