linux-kernel - [PATCH 13/14] vfs: increase shrinker batch size

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri,  8 Jul 2011 14:14:45 +1000
From:	Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
To:	viro@...IV.linux.org.uk
Cc:	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: [PATCH 13/14] vfs: increase shrinker batch size

From: Dave Chinner <dchinner@...hat.com>

Now that the per-sb shrinker is responsible for shrinking 2 or more
caches, increase the batch size to keep econmies of scale for
shrinking each cache.  Increase the shrinker batch size to 1024
objects.

To allow for a large increase in batch size, add a conditional
reschedule to prune_icache_sb() so that we don't hold the LRU spin
lock for too long. This mirrors the behaviour of the
__shrink_dcache_sb(), and allows us to increase the batch size
without needing to worry about problems caused by long lock hold
times.

To ensure that filesystems using the per-sb shrinker callouts don't
cause problems, document that the object freeing method must
reschedule appropriately inside loops.

Signed-off-by: Dave Chinner <dchinner@...hat.com>
---
 Documentation/filesystems/vfs.txt |    6 ++++++
 fs/super.c                        |    1 +
 2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/filesystems/vfs.txt b/Documentation/filesystems/vfs.txt
index fd24f34..6bf85b7 100644
--- a/Documentation/filesystems/vfs.txt
+++ b/Documentation/filesystems/vfs.txt
@@ -317,6 +317,12 @@ or bottom half).
 	the VM is trying to reclaim under GFP_NOFS conditions, hence this
 	method does not need to handle that situation itself.
 
+	Implementations must include conditional reschedule calls inside any
+	scanning loop that is done. This allows the VFS to determine
+	appropriate scan batch sizes without having to worry about whether
+	implementations will cause holdoff problems due to large scan batch
+	sizes.
+
 Whoever sets up the inode is responsible for filling in the "i_op" field. This
 is a pointer to a "struct inode_operations" which describes the methods that
 can be performed on individual inodes.
diff --git a/fs/super.c b/fs/super.c
index ca8e735..c1e0836 100644
--- a/fs/super.c
+++ b/fs/super.c
@@ -183,6 +183,7 @@ static struct super_block *alloc_super(struct file_system_type *type)
 
 		s->s_shrink.seeks = DEFAULT_SEEKS;
 		s->s_shrink.shrink = prune_super;
+		s->s_shrink.batch = 1024;
 	}
 out:
 	return s;
-- 
1.7.5.1

--
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/