linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v2 1/2] kernfs: use kernfs

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]

Date:   Fri, 7 Jan 2022 11:25:12 -1000
From:   Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:     Imran Khan <imran.f.khan@...cle.com>
Cc:     Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 1/2] kernfs: use kernfs_node specific mutex and
 spinlock.

Hello,

On Fri, Jan 07, 2022 at 11:01:55PM +1100, Imran Khan wrote:
> Could you please suggest me some current users of hashed locks ? I can
> check that code and modify my patches accordingly.

include/linux/blockgroup_lock.h seems to be one.

> As of now I have not found any standard benchmarks/workloads to show the
> impact of this contention. We have some in house DB applications where
> the impact can be easily seen.  Of course those applications can be
> modified to get the needed data from somewhere else or access sysfs less
> frequently but nonetheless I am trying to make the current locking
> scheme more scalable.

I don't think it needs to show up in one of the common benchmarks but what
the application does should make some sense. Which files are involved in the
contentions?

Thanks.

-- 
tejun