linux-kernel - Re: bl_list and lockdep

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 13 Apr 2021 23:24:45 +0200
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:     Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
Cc:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        peterz@...radead.org, mingo@...hat.com, will@...nel.org,
        longman@...hat.com, boqun.feng@...il.com, bigeasy@...utronix.de,
        hch@...radead.org, npiggin@...nel.dk
Subject: Re: bl_list and lockdep

Dave,

On Tue, Apr 13 2021 at 19:58, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 01:18:35AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> So for solving the inode cache scalability issue with RT in mind,
> we're left with these choices:
>
> a) increase memory consumption and cacheline misses for everyone by
>    adding a spinlock per hash chain so that RT kernels can do their
>    substitution magic and make the memory footprint and scalability
>    for RT kernels worse
>
> b) convert the inode hash table to something different (rhashtable,
>    radix tree, Xarray, etc) that is more scalable and more "RT
>    friendly".
>
> c) have RT kernel substitute hlist-bl with hlist_head and a spinlock
>    so that it all works correctly on RT kernels and only RT kernels
>    take the memory footprint and cacheline miss penalties...
>
> We rejected a) for the dentry hash table, so it is not an appropriate
> soltion for the inode hash table for the same reasons.
>
> There is a lot of downside to b). Firstly there's the time and
> resources needed for experimentation to find an appropriate
> algorithm for both scalability and RT. Then all the insert, removal
> and search facilities will have to be rewritten, along with all the
> subtlies like "fake hashing" to allow fielsysetms to provide their
> own inode caches.  The changes in behaviour and, potentially, API
> semantics will greatly increase the risk of regressions and adverse
> behaviour on both vanilla and RT kernels compared to option a) or
> c).
>
> It is clear that option c) is of minimal risk to vanilla kernels,
> and low risk to RT kernels. It's pretty straight forward to do for
> both configs, and only the RT kernels take the memory footprint
> penalty.
>
> So a technical analysis points to c) being the most reasonable
> resolution of the problem.

I agree with that analysis for technical reasons and I'm not entirely
unfamiliar how to solve hlist_bl conversions on RT either as you might
have guessed.

Having a technical argument to discuss and agree on is far simpler
than going along with "I don't care".

Thanks for taking the time to put a technical rationale on this!

       tglx