linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH - resend] VFS: use synchronize_rcu_expedited() in namespace

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: <20181005014002.GS32577@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date:   Fri, 5 Oct 2018 02:40:02 +0100
From:   Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To:     NeilBrown <neilb@...e.com>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH - resend] VFS: use synchronize_rcu_expedited() in
 namespace_unlock()

On Fri, Oct 05, 2018 at 11:27:37AM +1000, NeilBrown wrote:
> 
> The synchronize_rcu() in namespace_unlock() is called every time
> a filesystem is unmounted.  If a great many filesystems are mounted,
> this can cause a noticable slow-down in, for example, system shutdown.
> 
> The sequence:
>   mkdir -p /tmp/Mtest/{0..5000}
>   time for i in /tmp/Mtest/*; do mount -t tmpfs tmpfs $i ; done
>   time umount /tmp/Mtest/*
> 
> on a 4-cpu VM can report 8 seconds to mount the tmpfs filesystems, and
> 100 seconds to unmount them.
> 
> Boot the same VM with 1 CPU and it takes 18 seconds to mount the
> tmpfs filesystems, but only 36 to unmount.
> 
> If we change the synchronize_rcu() to synchronize_rcu_expedited()
> the umount time on a 4-cpu VM drop to 0.6 seconds
> 
> I think this 200-fold speed up is worth the slightly high system
> impact of using synchronize_rcu_expedited().
> 
> Acked-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> (from general rcu perspective)
> Signed-off-by: NeilBrown <neilb@...e.com>
> ---
> 
> I posted this last October, then again last November (cc:ing Linus)
> Paul is happy enough with it, but no other response.
> I'm hoping it can get applied this time....

Umm...  IIRC, the last one got sidetracked on the other thing in the series...
<checks> that was s_anon stuff.  I can live with this one; FWIW, what kind
of load would trigger the impact of the change?  Paul?