linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 0/5] kernfs: proposed locking and concurrency improvement

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: <YJtz6mmgPIwEQNgD@kroah.com>
Date:   Wed, 12 May 2021 08:21:30 +0200
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Ian Kent <raven@...maw.net>
Cc:     Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...deen.net>,
        Fox Chen <foxhlchen@...il.com>,
        Brice Goglin <brice.goglin@...il.com>,
        Rick Lindsley <ricklind@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
        Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>,
        Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/5] kernfs: proposed locking and concurrency
 improvement

On Wed, May 12, 2021 at 08:38:35AM +0800, Ian Kent wrote:
> There have been a few instances of contention on the kernfs_mutex during
> path walks, a case on very large IBM systems seen by myself, a report by
> Brice Goglin and followed up by Fox Chen, and I've since seen a couple
> of other reports by CoreOS users.
> 
> The common thread is a large number of kernfs path walks leading to
> slowness of path walks due to kernfs_mutex contention.
> 
> The problem being that changes to the VFS over some time have increased
> it's concurrency capabilities to an extent that kernfs's use of a mutex
> is no longer appropriate. There's also an issue of walks for non-existent
> paths causing contention if there are quite a few of them which is a less
> common problem.
> 
> This patch series is relatively straight forward.
> 
> All it does is add the ability to take advantage of VFS negative dentry
> caching to avoid needless dentry alloc/free cycles for lookups of paths
> that don't exit and change the kernfs_mutex to a read/write semaphore.
> 
> The patch that tried to stay in VFS rcu-walk mode during path walks has
> been dropped for two reasons. First, it doesn't actually give very much
> improvement and, second, if there's a place where mistakes could go
> unnoticed it would be in that path. This makes the patch series simpler
> to review and reduces the likelihood of problems going unnoticed and
> popping up later.
> 
> The patch to use a revision to identify if a directory has changed has
> also been dropped. If the directory has changed the dentry revision
> needs to be updated to avoid subsequent rb tree searches and after
> changing to use a read/write semaphore the update also requires a lock.
> But the d_lock is the only lock available at this point which might
> itself be contended.
> 
> Changes since v3:
> - remove unneeded indirection when referencing the super block.
> - check if inode attribute update is actually needed.
> 
> Changes since v2:
> - actually fix the inode attribute update locking.
> - drop the patch that tried to stay in rcu-walk mode.
> - drop the use a revision to identify if a directory has changed patch.
> 
> Changes since v1:
> - fix locking in .permission() and .getattr() by re-factoring the attribute
>   handling code.
> ---
> 
> Ian Kent (5):
>       kernfs: move revalidate to be near lookup
>       kernfs: use VFS negative dentry caching
>       kernfs: switch kernfs to use an rwsem
>       kernfs: use i_lock to protect concurrent inode updates
>       kernfs: add kernfs_need_inode_refresh()
> 
> 
>  fs/kernfs/dir.c             | 170 ++++++++++++++++++++----------------
>  fs/kernfs/file.c            |   4 +-
>  fs/kernfs/inode.c           |  45 ++++++++--
>  fs/kernfs/kernfs-internal.h |   5 +-
>  fs/kernfs/mount.c           |  12 +--
>  fs/kernfs/symlink.c         |   4 +-
>  include/linux/kernfs.h      |   2 +-
>  7 files changed, 147 insertions(+), 95 deletions(-)
> 
> --
> Ian
> 

Any benchmark numbers that you ran that are better/worse with this patch
series?  That woul dbe good to know, otherwise you aren't changing
functionality here, so why would we take these changes?  :)

thanks,

greg k-h