linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 08/11] locks: convert fl_link to a hlist

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]

Message-ID: <20130605124611.GB24193@fieldses.org>
Date:	Wed, 5 Jun 2013 08:46:11 -0400
From:	"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>
To:	Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>
Cc:	viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, matthew@....cx, dhowells@...hat.com,
	sage@...tank.com, smfrench@...il.com, swhiteho@...hat.com,
	Trond.Myklebust@...app.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-afs@...ts.infradead.org,
	ceph-devel@...r.kernel.org, linux-cifs@...r.kernel.org,
	samba-technical@...ts.samba.org, cluster-devel@...hat.com,
	linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	piastryyy@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 08/11] locks: convert fl_link to a hlist_node

On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 07:43:09AM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Jun 2013 17:59:50 -0400
> "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org> wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 11:07:31PM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > > Testing has shown that iterating over the blocked_list for deadlock
> > > detection turns out to be a bottleneck. In order to alleviate that,
> > > begin the process of turning it into a hashtable. We start by turning
> > > the fl_link into a hlist_node and the global lists into hlists. A later
> > > patch will do the conversion of the blocked_list to a hashtable.
> > 
> > Even simpler would be if we could add a pointer to the (well, a) lock
> > that a lockowner is blocking on, and then we'd just have to follow a
> > pointer.  I haven't thought that through, though, perhaps that's hard ot
> > make work....
> > 
> > --b.
> > 
> 
> I considered that as well and it makes sense for the simple local
> filesystem case where you just track ownership based on fl_owner_t.
> 
> But...what about lockd? It considers ownership to be a tuple of the
> nlm_host and the pid sent in a lock request. I can't seem to wrap my
> brain around how to make such an approach work there.

I wonder if we could do something vaguely like

	struct lock_owner_common {
		struct file_lock *blocker;
	};

	struct nlmsvc_lock_owner {
		struct lock_owner_common owner;
		unsigned int client_pid;
	};

and make fl_owner a (struct lock_owner_common *) and have lockd create
nlmsvc_lock_owners as necessary on the fly.  The lm_compare_owner
callback could then be replaced by a pointer comparison.  I'm not sure
what kind of locking or refcounting might be needed.  But...

> I'll confess though that I haven't tried *too* hard yet

... me neither, so...

> though since I had bigger problems to sort through at the time. Maybe
> we can consider that for a later set?

sounds fine.

--b.
--
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/