linux-kernel - Re: [RFC, PATCH, RESEND] fs: push rcu_barrier() from deactivate_locked

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: <20120608221446.GA18250@otc-wbsnb-06>
Date:	Sat, 9 Jun 2012 01:14:46 +0300
From:	"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Boaz Harrosh <bharrosh@...asas.com>,
	Tao Ma <boyu.mt@...bao.com>, Nick Piggin <npiggin@...nel.dk>,
	"Dmitry V. Levin" <ldv@...linux.org>,
	v9fs-developer@...ts.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-afs@...ts.infradead.org,
	linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org, ceph-devel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-cifs@...r.kernel.org, samba-technical@...ts.samba.org,
	codalist@...EMANN.coda.cs.cmu.edu, ecryptfs@...r.kernel.org,
	osd-dev@...n-osd.org, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
	fuse-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net, linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org,
	jfs-discussion@...ts.sourceforge.net, logfs@...fs.org,
	linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-nilfs@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-ntfs-dev@...ts.sourceforge.net, ocfs2-devel@....oracle.com,
	reiserfs-devel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC, PATCH, RESEND] fs: push rcu_barrier() from
 deactivate_locked_super() to filesystems

On Fri, Jun 08, 2012 at 03:02:53PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Sat,  9 Jun 2012 00:41:03 +0300
> "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> 
> > There's no reason to call rcu_barrier() on every deactivate_locked_super().
> > We only need to make sure that all delayed rcu free inodes are flushed
> > before we destroy related cache.
> > 
> > Removing rcu_barrier() from deactivate_locked_super() affects some
> > fas paths. E.g. on my machine exit_group() of a last process in IPC
> > namespace takes 0.07538s. rcu_barrier() takes 0.05188s of that time.
> 
> What an unpleasant patch.  Is final-process-exiting-ipc-namespace a
> sufficiently high-frequency operation to justify the change?
 
> I don't really understand what's going on here.  Are you saying that
> there is some filesystem against which we run deactivate_locked_super()
> during exit_group(), and that this filesystem doesn't use rcu-freeing
> of inodes?  The description needs this level of detail, please.

I think the rcu_barrier() is in wrong place. We need it to safely destroy
inode cache. deactivate_locked_super() is part of umount() path, but all
filesystems I've checked have inode cache for whole filesystem, not
per-mount.

> The implementation would be less unpleasant if we could do the
> rcu_barrier() in kmem_cache_destroy().  I can't see a way of doing that
> without adding a dedicated slab flag, which would require editing all
> the filesystems anyway.

I think rcu_barrier() for all kmem_cache_destroy() would be too expensive.
 
 
> (kmem_cache_destroy() already has an rcu_barrier().  Can we do away
> with the private rcu games in the vfs and switch to
> SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU?)

-- 
 Kirill A. Shutemov

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (837 bytes)