linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v9 5/5] lib/dlock-list: Scale dlock_lists

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:   Thu, 4 Oct 2018 09:41:56 -0400
From:   Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
To:     Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
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>,
        Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
        Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 5/5] lib/dlock-list: Scale dlock_lists_empty()

On 10/04/2018 03:16 AM, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Wed 12-09-18 15:28:52, Waiman Long wrote:
>> From: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>
>>
>> Instead of the current O(N) implementation, at the cost
>> of adding an atomic counter, we can convert the call to
>> an atomic_read(). The counter only serves for accounting
>> empty to non-empty transitions, and vice versa; therefore
>> only modified twice for each of the lists during the
>> lifetime of the dlock (while used).
>>
>> In addition, to be able to unaccount a list_del(), we
>> add a dlist pointer to each head, thus minimizing the
>> overall memory footprint.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@...e.de>
>> Acked-by: Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
> So I was wondering: Is this really worth it? AFAICS we have a single call
> site for dlock_lists_empty() and that happens during umount where we don't
> really care about this optimization. So it seems like unnecessary
> complication to me at this point? If someone comes up with a usecase that
> needs fast dlock_lists_empty(), then sure, we can do this...
>

Yes, that is true. We can skip this patch for the time being until a use
case comes up which requires dlock_lists_empty() to be used in the fast
path.

Cheers,
Longman