linux-kernel - Re: aio: bump i_count instead of using igrab

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: <20100823145031.GA1279@infradead.org>
Date:	Mon, 23 Aug 2010 10:50:31 -0400
From:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To:	Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: aio: bump i_count instead of using igrab

On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 10:47:55AM -0400, Chris Mason wrote:
> The aio batching code is using igrab to get an extra reference on the
> inode so it can safely batch.  igrab will go ahead and take the global
> inode spinlock, which can be a bottleneck on large machines doing lots
> of AIO.
> 
> In this case, igrab isn't required because we already have a reference
> on the file handle.  It is safe to just bump the i_count directly
> on the inode.
> 
> Benchmarking shows this patch brings IOP/s on tons of flash up by about
> 2.5X.

There's some places in XFS where we do the same, and it showed up as a
bottle neck before.  Instead of open coding the increment we have
a wrapper that includes and assert that the numbers is always positive.

I think we really want a proper helper for general use instead of
completly opencoding it.

--
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/