linux-kernel - Re: Btrfs for mainline

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: <20090107130742.GD3529@elte.hu>
Date:	Wed, 7 Jan 2009 14:07:42 +0100
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>
Cc:	Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>,
	Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-btrfs <linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@...ell.com>
Subject: Re: Btrfs for mainline


* Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 2009-01-06 at 01:47 +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> 
> [ adaptive locking in btrfs ]
> 
> > adaptive locks have traditionally (read: Linus says) indicated the locking
> > is suboptimal from a performance perspective and should be reworked. This
> > is definitely the case for the -rt patchset, because they deliberately
> > trade performance by change even very short held spinlocks to sleeping locks. 
> > 
> > So I don't really know if -rt justifies adaptive locks in mainline/btrfs.
> > Is there no way for the short critical sections to be decoupled from the
> > long/sleeping ones?
> 
> Yes and no.  The locks are used here to control access to the btree
> leaves and nodes.  Some of these are very hot and tend to stay in cache
> all the time, while others have to be read from the disk.
> 
> As the btree search walks down the tree, access to the hot nodes is best 
> controlled by a spinlock.  Some operations (like a balance) will need to 
> read other blocks from the disk and keep the node/leaf locked.  So it 
> also needs to be able to sleep.
> 
> I try to drop the locks where it makes sense before sleeping operatinos, 
> but in some corner cases it isn't practical.
> 
> For leaves, once the code has found the item in the btree it was looking 
> for, it wants to go off and do something useful (insert an inode etc 
> etc). Those operations also tend to block, and the lock needs to be held 
> to keep the tree block from changing.
> 
> All of this is a long way of saying the btrfs locking scheme is far from 
> perfect.  I'll look harder at the loop and ways to get rid of it.

<ob'plug>

adaptive spinning mutexes perhaps? Such as:

   http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/1/7/119

(also pullable via the URI below)

If you have a BTRFS performance test where you know such details matter 
you might want to try Peter's patch and send us the test results.

	Ingo

------------->

You can pull the latest core/locking git tree from:

   git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tip/linux-2.6-tip.git core/locking

------------------>
Peter Zijlstra (1):
      mutex: implement adaptive spinning


 include/linux/mutex.h   |    4 +-
 include/linux/sched.h   |    2 +
 kernel/mutex-debug.c    |   10 +------
 kernel/mutex-debug.h    |    8 -----
 kernel/mutex.c          |   46 ++++++++++++++++++++++--------
 kernel/mutex.h          |    2 -
 kernel/sched.c          |   73 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 kernel/sched_debug.c    |    2 +
 kernel/sched_features.h |    1 +
 9 files changed, 115 insertions(+), 33 deletions(-)
--
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/