linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/3] fuse: Use hash table to link processing request

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]

Date:   Tue, 25 Sep 2018 11:08:55 +0200
From:   Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
To:     Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@...tuozzo.com>
Cc:     kuznet@...tuozzo.com, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] fuse: Use hash table to link processing request

On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 12:12 PM, Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@...tuozzo.com> wrote:
> We noticed the performance bottle neck in FUSE running our
> Virtuozzo storage over rdma. On some types of workload
> we observe 20% of times pent in request_find() in profiler.
> This function is iterating over long requests list, and it
> scales bad.
>
> The patch introduces hash table to reduce the number
> of iterations, we do in this function. Hash generating
> algorithm is taken from hash_add() function, while
> 512 lines table is used to store pending requests.
> This fixes problem and improves the performance.

Pushed to fuse.git#for-next with a number of small changes.   E.g. I
reduced the number of cachlines to 256 to make the hashtable size just
4k.   Was there a scientific reason for choosing 512 as the optimal
number of cache lines?

Thanks,
Miklos