linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 2/6] fs: use on-stack-bio if backing device has BDI_CAP

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: <20170814085042.GG26913@bbox>
Date:   Mon, 14 Aug 2017 17:50:42 +0900
From:   Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>
To:     Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
Cc:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        Ross Zwisler <ross.zwisler@...ux.intel.com>,
        "karam . lee" <karam.lee@....com>, seungho1.park@....com,
        Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
        Vishal Verma <vishal.l.verma@...el.com>,
        "linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org" <linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org>,
        kernel-team <kernel-team@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 2/6] fs: use on-stack-bio if backing device has
 BDI_CAP_SYNC capability

Hi Jens,

On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 08:26:59AM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 08/11/2017 04:46 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 09, 2017 at 08:06:24PM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> >> I like it, but do you think we should switch to sbvec[<constant>] to
> >> preclude pathological cases where nr_pages is large?
> > 
> > Yes, please.
> > 
> > Then I'd like to see that the on-stack bio even matters for
> > mpage_readpage / mpage_writepage.  Compared to all the buffer head
> > overhead the bio allocation should not actually matter in practice.
> 
> I'm skeptical for that path, too. I also wonder how far we could go
> with just doing a per-cpu bio recycling facility, to reduce the cost
> of having to allocate a bio. The on-stack bio parts are fine for
> simple use case, where simple means that the patch just special
> cases the allocation, and doesn't have to change much else.
> 
> I had a patch for bio recycling and batched freeing a year or two
> ago, I'll see if I can find and resurrect it.

So, you want to go with per-cpu bio recycling approach to
remove rw_page?

So, do you want me to hold this patchset?