linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 08/19] ceph: address space operations

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: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0907231115190.2930@cobra.newdream.net>
Date:	Thu, 23 Jul 2009 11:22:04 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Sage Weil <sage@...dream.net>
To:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
cc:	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/19] ceph: address space operations

On Thu, 23 Jul 2009, Andi Kleen wrote:

> Sage Weil <sage@...dream.net> writes:
> 
> > The ceph address space methods are concerned primarily with managing
> > the dirty page accounting in the inode, which (among other things)
> > must keep track of which snapshot context each page was dirtied in,
> > and ensure that dirty data is written out to the OSDs in snapshort
> > order.
> >
> > A writepage() on a page that is not currently writeable due to
> > snapshot writeback ordering constraints is ignored (it was presumably
> > called from kswapd).
> 
> Not a detailed review. You would need to get one from someone who
> knows the VFS interfaces very well (unfortunately those people are hard
> to find). I just read through it.
> 
> One thing I noticed is that you seem to do a lot of memory allocation
> in the write out paths (some of it even GFP_KERNEL, not GFP_NOFS) 

I fixed the bad GFP_KERNEL/uncheck kmalloc.  Which was just a struct 
pagevec, which we added a while ago to reduce stack usage.  Maybe the 
stack is a better place for it though?  (cifs puts it on the stack...)

> There were some changes to make this problem less severe (e.g. better
> dirty pages accounting), but I don't think anyone has really declared
> it solved yet. The standard workaround for this is to use mempools 
> for anything allocated in the writeout path, then you are at least
> guaranteed to make forward progress.

There are two other memory allocations during writeout: a vector of pages 
to be written, and the message we're sending to the OSD.  If I use a 
mempool for those to guarantee as least some writeout will occur, how do I 
safely defer when allocations do fail?  Will pdflush (or it's replacement) 
eventually come back and try ->writepages() again?

Thanks-
sage
--
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/