linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] async: Don't call async_synchronize_full_special() while holding sb

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]

Date:	Thu, 08 Jan 2009 20:45:06 -0800
From:	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>
To:	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>,
	Dave Kleikamp <shaggy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Grissiom <chaos.proton@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] async: Don't call async_synchronize_full_special()	while
 holding sb_lock

Dave Chinner wrote:

> 
> So, given the potential impact of this change, what testing have
> you done in terms of:
> 
> 	- performance impact

I tested this on my machines and it gave a real performance improvement (11 to 8 seconds for a full kernel tree unlink, and cutting out
latency for normal applications)
> 	- sync() safety
that was exactly the synchronization point that's discussed here.

> 	- removing a million files and queuing all of the
> 	  deletes in the async queues....

the async code throttles at 32k outstanding.
Yes 32K is arbitrary, but if you delete  a million files fast, all but the first few thousand are
synchronous.

--
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/