linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Give kjournald a IOPRIO_CLASS

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: <20081002214353.30873f98@infradead.org>
Date:	Thu, 2 Oct 2008 21:43:53 -0700
From:	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Give kjournald a IOPRIO_CLASS_RT io priority

> [  517.067572]  [<c042ee64>] warn_on_slowpath+0x41/0x65
> [  517.067652]  [<c070ec83>] io_schedule+0x77/0xb0
> [  517.067659]  [<c04abc72>] sync_buffer+0x33/0x37
> [  517.067666]  [<c070f010>] __wait_on_bit_lock+0x34/0x5e
> [  517.067682]  [<c070f0e5>] out_of_line_wait_on_bit_lock+0xab/0xb3
> [  517.067707]  [<c04abfa1>] __lock_buffer+0x24/0x2a
> [  517.067715]  [<c04dd7fc>] do_get_write_access+0x64/0x3b1
> [  517.067743]  [<c04ddb64>] journal_get_write_access+0x1b/0x2a
> [  517.067752]  [<c04da374>] __ext3_journal_get_write_access+0x19/0x3c
> [  517.067761]  [<c04cf672>] ext3_reserve_inode_write+0x34/0x68
> [  517.067769]  [<c04cf6d5>] ext3_mark_inode_dirty+0x2f/0x46
> [  517.067777]  [<c04cf7f7>] ext3_dirty_inode+0x53/0x67
> [  517.067784]  [<c04a7bed>] __mark_inode_dirty+0x29/0x144
> [  517.067794]  [<c049e60f>] file_update_time+0x80/0xa9
> [  517.067803]  [<c046b66c>] __generic_file_aio_write_nolock+0x2f0/0x41b
> [  517.067842]  [<c046bf0d>] generic_file_aio_write+0x5a/0xb7
> [  517.067850]  [<c04cdc65>] ext3_file_write+0x1a/0x89
> [  517.067858]  [<c048da41>] do_sync_write+0xab/0xe9
> [  517.067896]  [<c048e302>] vfs_write+0x8a/0x12e
> [  517.067903]  [<c048e43f>] sys_write+0x3b/0x60
> [  517.067910]  [<c0403b0b>] sysenter_do_call+0x12/0x2f
> [  517.067919]  =======================
> [  517.067923] ---[ end trace de523043f88bd9a7 ]---  

> That's the one - the lock_buffer() in do_get_write_access().  It's a
> major contention site and it'd be a major win if we could fix it.
> Even if we resorted to some nasty thing like taking a temp copy of the
> buffer's contents.

I also notice it's part of "file_update_time". Do we really need to go all the way 
down to this level of synchronicity for that?
(I also randomly wonder if we, in the write path, dirty the inode twice, once for size once for item, and
if we then also reserve two slots in the journal for that..... but I'm showing
my total ignorance of JBD internals here)

-- 
Arjan van de Ven 	Intel Open Source Technology Centre
For development, discussion and tips for power savings, 
visit http://www.lesswatts.org
--
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/