linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH] fs: optimize inotify/fsnotify code for unwatched files

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: <20150623002959.GE3892@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:	Mon, 22 Jun 2015 17:29:59 -0700
From:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	Dave Hansen <dave@...1.net>, Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
	dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	jack@...e.cz, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, eparis@...hat.com,
	john@...nmccutchan.com, rlove@...ve.org,
	tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] fs: optimize inotify/fsnotify code for unwatched
 files

On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 08:52:29PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 08:11:21AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > That depends on how slow the resulting slow global state would be.
> > We have some use cases (definitely KVM, perhaps also some of the VFS
> > code) that need the current speed, as opposed to the profound slowness
> > that three trips through synchronize_sched() would provide.
> 
> So what we have with that percpu-rwsem code that I send out earlier
> today is a conditional smp_mb(), and I think we can do the same for
> SRCU.
> 
> I'm just not sure !GP is common enough for all SRCU cases to be worth
> doing.

Especially given that we don't want the readers to have to acquire a
lock in order to get a consistent view of whether or not a grace period
is in progress.

> Those that rely on sync_srcu() and who do it rarely would definitely
> benefit. The same with those that rarely do call_srcu().
> 
> But those that heavily use call_srcu() would be better off with the
> prolonged GP with 3 sync_sched() calls in.

Those are indeed two likely possibilities.  Other possibilities include
cases where synchronize_srcu() is invoked rarely, but where its latency
is visible to userspace, and those where there really is a need to
wait synchronously for a grace period, so that call_srcu() doesn't buy
you anything.

							Thanx, Paul

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/