netdev - Re: [PATCH 6/6] fs: Introduce kern_mount

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: <493072B7.5050308@cosmosbay.com>
Date:	Fri, 28 Nov 2008 23:37:43 +0100
From:	Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>
To:	Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
CC:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	kernel-testers@...r.kernel.org, Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Linux Netdev List <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>, rth@...ddle.net,
	ink@...assic.park.msu.ru
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/6] fs: Introduce kern_mount_special() to mount	special
 vfs

Al Viro a écrit :
> On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 12:32:59AM +0100, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>> This function arms a flag (MNT_SPECIAL) on the vfs, to avoid
>> refcounting on permanent system vfs.
>> Use this function for sockets, pipes, anonymous fds.
> 
> IMO that's pushing it past the point of usefulness; unless you can show
> that this really gives considerable win on pipes et.al. *AND* that it
> doesn't hurt other loads...

Well, if this is the last cache line that might be shared, then yes, numbers can talk.
But coming from 10 to 1 instead of 0 is OK I guess

> 
> dput() part: again, I want to see what happens on other loads; it's probably
> fine (and win is certainly more than from mntput() change), but...  The
> thing is, atomic_dec_and_lock() in there is often done on dentries with
> d_count > 1 and that's fairly cheap (and doesn't involve contention on
> dcache_lock on sane targets).
> 
> FWIW, unless there's a really good reason to do alpha atomic_dec_and_lock()
> in a special way, I'd try to compare with

>         if (atomic_add_unless(&dentry->d_count, -1, 1))
>                 return;

I dont know, but *reading* d_count before trying to write it is expensive
on modern cpus. Oprofile clearly show that on Intel Core2.

Then, *testing* the flag before doing the atomic_something() has the same
problem. Or we should put flag in a different cache line.

I am lazy (time for a sleep here), maybe we are smart here and use a trick like that already ?

atomic_t atomic_read_with_write_intent(atomic_t *v)
{
        int val = 0;
	/*
	 * No LOCK prefix here, we only give a write intent hint to cpu
	 */
        asm volatile("xaddl %0, %1"
                     : "+r" (val), "+m" (v->counter)
                     : : "memory");
        return val;
}



> 	if (your flag)
> 		sod off to special
> 	spin_lock(&dcache_lock);
> 	if (atomic_dec_and_test(&dentry->d_count)) {
> 		spin_unlock(&dcache_lock);
> 		return;
> 	}
> 	the rest as usual
> 

--
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