linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 0/3] ext4: increase mbcache scalability

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: <87fvodcb65.fsf@tassilo.jf.intel.com>
Date:	Fri, 24 Jan 2014 13:38:58 -0800
From:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To:	T Makphaibulchoke <tmac@...com>
Cc:	viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, tytso@....edu, adilger.kernel@...ger.ca,
	linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, aswin@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/3] ext4: increase mbcache scalability

T Makphaibulchoke <tmac@...com> writes:

> The patch consists of three parts.
>
> The first part changes the implementation of both the block and hash chains of
> an mb_cache from list_head to hlist_bl_head and also introduces new members,
> including a spinlock to mb_cache_entry, as required by the second part.

spinlock per entry is usually overkill for larger hash tables.

Can you use a second smaller lock table that just has locks and is 
indexed by a subset of the hash key. Most likely a very small 
table is good enough.

Also I would be good to have some data on the additional memory consumption.

-Andi

-- 
ak@...ux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only
--
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/