netdev - Re: POHMELFS high performance network filesystem. Transactions, failover, performance.

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: <20080514010101.8ef541b3.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Wed, 14 May 2008 01:01:01 -0700
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Evgeniy Polyakov <johnpol@....mipt.ru>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: POHMELFS high performance network filesystem. Transactions,
 failover, performance.

On Wed, 14 May 2008 11:40:30 +0400 Evgeniy Polyakov <johnpol@....mipt.ru> wrote:

> Hi Andrew.
> 
> On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 11:33:41PM -0700, Andrew Morton (akpm@...ux-foundation.org) wrote:
> > If any thread takes more than one kmap() at a time, it is deadlockable.
> > Because there is a finite pool of kmaps.  Everyone can end up holding
> > one or more kmaps, then waiting for someone else to release one.
> 
> It never takes the whole LAST_PKMAP maps. So the same can be applied to
> any user who kmaps at least one page - while user waits for free slot,
> it can be reused by someone else and so on.
> 
> But it can be speed issue, on 32 bit machine with 8gb of ram essentially
> all pages were highmem and required mapping, so this does slows things
> down (probably a lot), so I will extend writeback path of the POHMELFS
> not to kmap pages, but instead use ->sendpage(), which if needed will
> map page one-by-one. Current approach when page is mapped and then
> copied looks really beter since the only one sending function is used
> which takes lock only single time.

OK.

> > Duplicating page_waitqueue() is bad.  Exporting it is probably bad too.
> > Better would be to help us work out why the core kernel infrastructure is
> > unsuitable, then make it suitable.
> 
> When ->writepage() is used, it has to wait until page is written (remote
> side sent acknowledge), so if multiple pages are being written
> simultaneously we either have to allocate shared structure or use
> per-page wait.

That sounds exactly like wait_on_page_writeback()?

> Right now there are transactions (and they will be used
> for all operations eventually), so this waiting can go away.
> It is exactly the same logic which lock_page() uses.
>
> Will lock_page_killable()/__lock_page_killable() be exported to modules?

Maybe, if there's a need.  I see no particular problem with that.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html