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] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Fri, 23 Dec 2016 08:09:51 -0500
From:   Dan Streetman <ddstreet@...e.org>
To:     Vitaly Wool <vitalywool@...il.com>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] z3fold fixes

On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 6:04 PM, Vitaly Wool <vitalywool@...il.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 10:55 PM, Dan Streetman <ddstreet@...e.org> wrote:
>> On Sun, Dec 18, 2016 at 3:15 AM, Vitaly Wool <vitalywool@...il.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 11:39 PM, Andrew Morton
>>> <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 29 Nov 2016 17:33:19 -0500 Dan Streetman <ddstreet@...e.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, Nov 26, 2016 at 2:15 PM, Vitaly Wool <vitalywool@...il.com> wrote:
>>>>> > Here come 2 patches with z3fold fixes for chunks counting and locking. As commit 50a50d2 ("z3fold: don't fail kernel build is z3fold_header is too big") was NAK'ed [1], I would suggest that we removed that one and the next z3fold commit cc1e9c8 ("z3fold: discourage use of pages that weren't compacted") and applied the coming 2 instead.
>>>>>
>>>>> Instead of adding these onto all the previous ones, could you redo the
>>>>> entire z3fold series?  I think it'll be simpler to review the series
>>>>> all at once and that would remove some of the stuff from previous
>>>>> patches that shouldn't be there.
>>>>>
>>>>> If that's ok with Andrew, of course, but I don't think any of the
>>>>> z3fold patches have been pushed to Linus yet.
>>>>
>>>> Sounds good to me.  I had a few surprise rejects when merging these
>>>> two, which indicates that things might be out of sync.
>>>>
>>>> I presently have:
>>>>
>>>> z3fold-limit-first_num-to-the-actual-range-of-possible-buddy-indexes.patch
>>>> z3fold-make-pages_nr-atomic.patch
>>>> z3fold-extend-compaction-function.patch
>>>> z3fold-use-per-page-spinlock.patch
>>>> z3fold-discourage-use-of-pages-that-werent-compacted.patch
>>>> z3fold-fix-header-size-related-issues.patch
>>>> z3fold-fix-locking-issues.patch
>>>
>>> My initial suggestion was to have it the following way:
>>> z3fold-limit-first_num-to-the-actual-range-of-possible-buddy-indexes.patch
>>
>> this is a good one, acked by both of us; it should stay and go upstream to Linus
>>
>>> z3fold-make-pages_nr-atomic.patch
>>
>> the change itself looks ok and I acked it, but as Andrew commented the
>> log says nothing about why it's being changed; the atomic function is
>> slower so the log should explain why it's being changed; anyone
>> reviewing the log history won't know why you made the change, and the
>> change all by itself is a step backwards in performance.
>>
>>> z3fold-extend-compaction-function.patch
>>
>> this explictly has a bug in it that's fixed in one of the later
>> patches; instead, this should be fixed up and resent.
>>
>>> z3fold-use-per-page-spinlock.patch
>>
>> i should have explicitly nak'ed this, as not only did it add a bug
>> (fixed by the the other 'fix-' patch below) but its design should be
>> replaced by kref counting, which your latest patch is working
>> towards...
>>
>>> z3fold-fix-header-size-related-issues.patch
>>> z3fold-fix-locking-issues.patch
>>
>> and these fix the known problems in the previous patches.
>>
>>>
>>> I would prefer to keep the fix-XXX patches separate since e. g.
>>> z3fold-fix-header-size-related-issues.patch concerns also the problems
>>> that have been in the code for a while now. I am ok with folding these
>>> into the relevant main patches but once again, given that some fixes
>>> are related to the code that is already merged, I don't see why it
>>> would be better.
>>
>> none of those patches are "merged", the last z3fold patch in Linus'
>> tree is 43afc194 from June.  Just because they're in Andrew's mmotm
>> queue (and/or linux-next) doesn't mean they are going to be
>> merged...(correct me please if I'm wrong there Andrew)
>
> that I do understand, however,
> z3fold-fix-header-size-related-issues.patch fixes the off-by-one issue
> present in the code that is in Linus's tree too.

sorry, I just looked at this in mmotm and it does look good; I must
have been confused because this was sent as part of a 2-patch series,
but the two patches don't seem related :-)

>
>> So as you can see by my patch-by-patch breakdown, almost all of them
>> need changes based on feedback from various people.  And they are all
>> related - your goal is to improve z3fold performance, right?  IMHO
>> they should be sent as a single patch series with that goal in the
>> cover letter, including specific details and numbers about how the
>> series does improve performance.
>
> but that is a good idea anyway, the only thing i\m not sure about is
> whether it makes sense to fold
> z3fold-fix-header-size-related-issues.patch into another or not.

no that looks ok to separate, it's a standalone bugfix.  I'm just
saying, for the patches where problems were identified already, resend
them with the patches fixed; and any that are related, send as a
series.

>
> ~vitaly

Powered by blists - more mailing lists