linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] staging: lustre: avoid going through unlock/lock overhead

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]

Message-ID: <20170907132937.GA4147@yoga.localdomain>
Date:   Thu, 7 Sep 2017 16:29:37 +0300
From:   Cihangir Akturk <cakturk@...il.com>
To:     Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     lustre-devel@...ts.lustre.org, devel@...verdev.osuosl.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, oleg.drokin@...el.com,
        andreas.dilger@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: lustre: avoid going through unlock/lock overhead

On Thu, Sep 07, 2017 at 02:33:49PM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 07, 2017 at 01:57:42PM +0300, Cihangir Akturk wrote:
> > Unlocking a spin lock and then immediately locking without doing
> > anything useful in between buys us nothing, except wasting CPU cycles.
> 
> Not always, it can be a "gate" for other users of the lock.

OK, I get it.


> Are you sure that is not what is going on here?

No, I'm not sure. But yes, that's possible it might be used to let in
other users of the lock.

> Did you test this out on a lustre system?  The locks here are
> anything but trivial...

Unfortunately I haven't tested this change on a lustre system. Just
compile-tested.

> > 
> > Also code size gets smaller.
> > 
> > Before:
> > 
> >  text  data   bss    dec    hex filename
> > 70415  2356  4108  76879  12c4f drivers/staging/lustre/lnet/klnds/o2iblnd/o2iblnd.o
> > 
> > After:
> > 
> >  text  data   bss    dec    hex filename
> > 70095  2356  4108  76559  12b0f drivers/staging/lustre/lnet/klnds/o2iblnd/o2iblnd.o
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Cihangir Akturk <cakturk@...il.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/staging/lustre/lnet/klnds/o2iblnd/o2iblnd.c | 18 ++++++++----------
> >  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/staging/lustre/lnet/klnds/o2iblnd/o2iblnd.c b/drivers/staging/lustre/lnet/klnds/o2iblnd/o2iblnd.c
> > index 64763aa..5d9cd33 100644
> > --- a/drivers/staging/lustre/lnet/klnds/o2iblnd/o2iblnd.c
> > +++ b/drivers/staging/lustre/lnet/klnds/o2iblnd/o2iblnd.c
> > @@ -1624,8 +1624,9 @@ int kiblnd_fmr_pool_map(struct kib_fmr_poolset *fps, struct kib_tx *tx,
> >  	__u64 version;
> >  	int rc;
> >  
> > - again:
> > +again:
> >  	spin_lock(&fps->fps_lock);
> > +again_locked:
> >  	version = fps->fps_version;
> >  	list_for_each_entry(fpo, &fps->fps_pool_list, fpo_list) {
> >  		fpo->fpo_deadline = cfs_time_shift(IBLND_POOL_DEADLINE);
> > @@ -1722,10 +1723,8 @@ int kiblnd_fmr_pool_map(struct kib_fmr_poolset *fps, struct kib_tx *tx,
> >  		}
> >  
> >  		/* EAGAIN and ... */
> > -		if (version != fps->fps_version) {
> > -			spin_unlock(&fps->fps_lock);
> > -			goto again;
> > -		}
> > +		if (version != fps->fps_version)
> > +			goto again_locked;
> >  	}
> >  
> >  	if (fps->fps_increasing) {
> > @@ -1754,9 +1753,8 @@ int kiblnd_fmr_pool_map(struct kib_fmr_poolset *fps, struct kib_tx *tx,
> >  	} else {
> >  		fps->fps_next_retry = cfs_time_shift(IBLND_POOL_RETRY);
> >  	}
> > -	spin_unlock(&fps->fps_lock);
> >  
> > -	goto again;
> > +	goto again_locked;
> 
> Really, gotos backwards?  Ick, that's horrid as well, so maybe this is
> better?  I hate this whole codebase...
> 
> I'll let the Lustre maintainers decide about this one...
> 
> greg k-h