linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v7 5/6] lib/dlock-list: Enable faster lookup with hashing

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: <20171009130827.GC5131@linux-80c1.suse>
Date:   Mon, 9 Oct 2017 06:08:27 -0700
From:   Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>
To:     Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
Cc:     Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.com>,
        Jeff Layton <jlayton@...chiereds.net>,
        "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>,
        Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
        Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
        Dave Chinner <dchinner@...hat.com>,
        Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 5/6] lib/dlock-list: Enable faster lookup with hashing

On Thu, 05 Oct 2017, Waiman Long wrote:

>Insertion and deletion is relatively cheap and mostly contention
>free for dlock-list. Lookup, on the other hand, can be rather costly
>because all the lists in a dlock-list will have to be iterated.
>
>Currently dlock-list insertion is based on the cpu that the task is
>running on. So a given object can be inserted into any one of the
>lists depending on what the current cpu is.
>
>This patch provides an alternative way of list selection. The caller
>can provide a object context which will be hashed to one of the list
>in a dlock-list. The object can then be added into that particular
>list. Lookup can be done by iterating elements in the provided list
>only instead of all the lists in a dlock-list.

Unless I'm misusing the api, I could not find a standard way of
iterating a _particular_ list head (the one the dlock_list_hash()
returned). This is because iterators always want the all the heads.

Also, in my particular epoll case I'd need the head->lock _not_ to
be dropped after the iteration, and therefore is pretty adhoc.
Currently we do:

dlist_for_each_entry() {
	// acquire head->lock for each list
}
// no locks held
dlist_add()

I'm thinking perhaps we could have dlist_check_add() which passes a
callback to ensure we want to add the node. The function could acquire
the head->lock and not release it until the very end.

Thanks,
Davidlohr