linux-kernel - Re: [linus:master] [xfs] c91d38b57f: stress-ng.chown.ops_per

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: <aOJckY5NnB2MaOqj@dread.disaster.area>
Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2025 22:54:57 +1100
From: Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Cc: kernel test robot <oliver.sang@...el.com>,
	Dave Chinner <dchinner@...hat.com>, oe-lkp@...ts.linux.dev,
	lkp@...el.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Carlos Maiolino <cem@...nel.org>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
	linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [linus:master] [xfs]  c91d38b57f:  stress-ng.chown.ops_per_sec
 70.2% improvement

On Fri, Oct 03, 2025 at 09:56:15AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 02, 2025 at 04:11:29PM +0800, kernel test robot wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > Hello,
> > 
> > kernel test robot noticed a 70.2% improvement of stress-ng.chown.ops_per_sec on:
> 
> I wonder what stress-ng shown is doing, because unless it is mixing fsync
> and ilock-heavy operations on the same node this would be highly
> unexpected.

stress-ng puts a fsync() at the end of every ops loop:

	do {
		int ret;

		ret = do_fchown(fd, bad_fd, cap_chown, uid, gid);
		if ((ret < 0) && (ret != -EPERM)) {
			pr_fail("%s: fchown failed, errno=%d (%s)%s\n",
				args->name, errno, strerror(errno),
				stress_get_fs_type(filename));
			rc = EXIT_FAILURE;
			break;
		}

		ret = do_chown(chown, filename, cap_chown, uid, gid);
		if ((ret < 0) && (ret != -EPERM)) {
			pr_fail("%s: chown %s failed, errno=%d (%s)%s\n",
				args->name, filename, errno, strerror(errno),
				stress_get_fs_type(filename));
			rc = EXIT_FAILURE;
			break;
		}
		ret = do_chown(lchown, filename, cap_chown, uid, gid);
		if ((ret < 0) && (ret != -EPERM)) {
			pr_fail("%s: lchown %s failed, errno=%d (%s)%s\n",
				args->name, filename, errno, strerror(errno),
				stress_get_fs_type(filename));
			rc = EXIT_FAILURE;
			break;
		}
>>>>>>>>	(void)shim_fsync(fd);
		stress_bogo_inc(args);
	} while (stress_continue(args));

It's also triggering a change in rwsem contention behaviour on the
inode->i_rwsem in chown_common(), from sleeping to spinning, because
fsync() no longer causes ILOCK_EXCL lock contention and causes the
task currently doing a chown operation to wait on the ILOCK_EXCL
whilst holding the inode->i_rwsem.

Hence all the chown() operations now trigger the spin-on-waiter
heuristic on the inode->i_rwsem as the lock holder never releases
the CPU during the modification. That explains why the CPU usage
increase (from ~2 CPUs to ~50 CPUs) is way out of proportion with
the actual increase in performance.

-Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@...morbit.com