linux-kernel - Re: [Cluster-devel] [PATCH v6 10/19] gfs2: Introduce flag for glock holder auto-demotion

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: <8e2ab23b93c96248b7c253dc3ea2007f5244adee.camel@redhat.com>
Date:   Mon, 23 Aug 2021 09:14:50 +0100
From:   Steven Whitehouse <swhiteho@...hat.com>
To:     Andreas Gruenbacher <agruenba@...hat.com>,
        Bob Peterson <rpeterso@...hat.com>
Cc:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
        "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...nel.org>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        cluster-devel <cluster-devel@...hat.com>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        ocfs2-devel@....oracle.com
Subject: Re: [Cluster-devel] [PATCH v6 10/19] gfs2: Introduce flag for glock
 holder auto-demotion

On Fri, 2021-08-20 at 17:22 +0200, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 20, 2021 at 3:11 PM Bob Peterson <rpeterso@...hat.com>
> wrote:
> > 
[snip]
> > 
> > You can almost think of this as a performance enhancement. This
> > concept
> > allows a process to hold a glock for much longer periods of time,
> > at a
> > lower priority, for example, when gfs2_file_read_iter needs to hold
> > the
> > glock for very long-running iterative reads.
> 
> Consider a process that allocates a somewhat large buffer and reads
> into it in chunks that are not page aligned. The buffer initially
> won't be faulted in, so we fault in the first chunk and write into
> it.
> Then, when reading the second chunk, we find that the first page of
> the second chunk is already present. We fill it, set the
> HIF_MAY_DEMOTE flag, fault in more pages, and clear the
> HIF_MAY_DEMOTE
> flag. If we then still have the glock (which is very likely), we
> resume the read. Otherwise, we return a short result.
> 
> Thanks,
> Andreas
> 

If the goal here is just to allow the glock to be held for a longer
period of time, but with occasional interruptions to prevent
starvation, then we have a potential model for this. There is
cond_resched_lock() which does this for spin locks. So perhaps we might
do something similar:

/**
 * gfs2_glock_cond_regain - Conditionally drop and regain glock
 * @gl: The glock
 * @gh: A granted holder for the glock
 *
 * If there is a pending demote request for this glock, drop and 
 * requeue a lock request for this glock. If there is no pending
 * demote request, this is a no-op. In either case the glock is
 * held on both entry and exit.
 *
 * Returns: 0 if no pending demote, 1 if lock dropped and regained
 */
int gfs2_glock_cond_regain(struct gfs2_glock *gl, struct gfs2_holder
*gh);

That seems more easily understood, and clearly documents places where
the lock may be dropped and regained. I think that the implementation
should be simpler and cleaner, compared with the current proposed
patch. There are only two bit flags related to pending demotes, for
example, so the check should be trivial.

It may need a few changes depending on the exact circumstances, but
hopefully that illustrates the concept,

Steve.