linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] xfs: optimise xfs_mod

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <c2c0ccb7-64c9-4549-6683-0984073ccd0b@hisilicon.com>
Date:   Tue, 5 Nov 2019 11:08:01 +0800
From:   Shaokun Zhang <zhangshaokun@...ilicon.com>
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
CC:     <linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Yang Guo <guoyang2@...wei.com>,
        "Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfs: optimise xfs_mod_icount/ifree when delta < 0

Hi Christoph,

On 2019/11/4 23:25, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 04, 2019 at 07:29:40PM +0800, Shaokun Zhang wrote:
>> From: Yang Guo <guoyang2@...wei.com>
>>
>> percpu_counter_compare will be called by xfs_mod_icount/ifree to check
>> whether the counter less than 0 and it is a expensive function.
>> let's check it only when delta < 0, it will be good for xfs's performance.
> 
> How much overhead do you see?  In the end the compare is just a debug

Thanks your reply, sorry for my not clear description.
__percpu_counter_compare itself is not expensive, but __percpu_counter_sum
called by __percpu_counter_compare is high load, I will list it in next thread.

> check, so if it actually shows up we should remove it entirely.
> 

I'm not sure about it, so I check the delta to do less modification.

Thanks,
Shaokun

>