From: "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" <mtk.manpages@gmail.com>
To: Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@oracle.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: mtk.manpages@gmail.com, Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>,
socketpair@gmail.com,
Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@fb.com>, Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
linux-api@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/8] pipe: make account_pipe_buffers() return a value, and use it
Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2016 08:51:32 +1200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <2742a9f6-e137-9ee3-2f24-63f3fe273450@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <57B6D303.2060301@oracle.com>
On 08/19/2016 09:36 PM, Vegard Nossum wrote:
> On 08/19/2016 07:25 AM, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
>> This is an optional patch, to provide a small performance improvement.
>> Alter account_pipe_buffers() so that it returns the new value in
>> user->pipe_bufs. This means that we can refactor too_many_pipe_buffers_soft()
>> and too_many_pipe_buffers_hard() to avoid the costs of repeated use of
>> atomic_long_read() to get the value user->pipe_bufs.
> [...]
>> @@ -627,17 +625,18 @@ struct pipe_inode_info *alloc_pipe_info(void)
>> struct pipe_inode_info *pipe;
>> unsigned long pipe_bufs = PIPE_DEF_BUFFERS;
>> struct user_struct *user = get_current_user();
>> + unsigned long num_bufs;
>
> Maybe user_bufs would be more descriptive since num_bufs is a bit
> ambiguous without the context.
Okay -- changed.
>> pipe = kzalloc(sizeof(struct pipe_inode_info), GFP_KERNEL_ACCOUNT);
>> if (pipe == NULL)
>> goto out_free_uid;
>>
>> - if (too_many_pipe_buffers_soft(user))
>> + if (too_many_pipe_buffers_soft(atomic_long_read(&user->pipe_bufs)))
>> pipe_bufs = 1;
>>
>> - account_pipe_buffers(user, 0, pipe_bufs);
>> + num_bufs = account_pipe_buffers(user, 0, pipe_bufs);
>>
>> - if (too_many_pipe_buffers_hard(user))
>> + if (too_many_pipe_buffers_hard(num_bufs))
>> goto out_revert_acct;
>>
>> pipe->bufs = kcalloc(pipe_bufs, sizeof(struct pipe_buffer),
>
> Why not structure it like this?
>
> num_bufs = account_pipe_buffers(user, 0, pipe_bufs);
> if (too_many_pipe_buffers_soft(num_bufs)) {
> num_bufs = account_pipe_buffers(user, pipe_bufs, 1);
> pipe_bufs = 1;
> }
> if (too_many_pipe_buffers_hard(num_bufs))
> goto out_revert_acct;
>
> Otherwise you still have the case that somebody makes it past
> too_many_pipe_buffers_soft() before the accounting is done.
Ahh -- thanks! I knew there was a small glitch there, but decided to
ignore it because didn't see the obvious solution. Fixed in 6/8 patch.
Cheers,
Michael
--
Michael Kerrisk
Linux man-pages maintainer; http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/
Linux/UNIX System Programming Training: http://man7.org/training/
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-08-19 20:51 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <67ce15aa-cf43-0c89-d079-2d966177c56d@gmail.com>
2016-08-19 5:25 ` [PATCH 1/8] pipe: relocate round_pipe_size() above pipe_set_size() Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)
2016-08-19 5:25 ` [PATCH 2/8] pipe: move limit checking logic into pipe_set_size() Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)
2016-08-19 5:25 ` [PATCH 3/8] pipe: refactor argument for account_pipe_buffers() Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)
2016-08-19 5:25 ` [PATCH 4/8] pipe: fix limit checking in pipe_set_size() Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)
2016-08-19 5:48 ` Willy Tarreau
2016-08-19 20:51 ` Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)
2016-08-21 21:15 ` Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)
2016-08-21 21:35 ` Willy Tarreau
2016-08-22 19:37 ` Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)
2016-08-19 8:30 ` Vegard Nossum
2016-08-19 20:56 ` Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)
2016-08-19 23:17 ` Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)
2016-08-21 10:33 ` Vegard Nossum
2016-08-21 21:14 ` Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)
2016-08-19 5:25 ` [PATCH 5/8] pipe: simplify logic in alloc_pipe_info() Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)
2016-08-19 5:25 ` [PATCH 6/8] pipe: fix limit checking " Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)
2016-08-19 5:25 ` [PATCH 7/8] pipe: make account_pipe_buffers() return a value, and use it Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)
2016-08-19 9:36 ` Vegard Nossum
2016-08-19 20:51 ` Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) [this message]
2016-08-19 5:26 ` [PATCH 8/8] pipe: cap initial pipe capacity according to pipe-max-size limit Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=2742a9f6-e137-9ee3-2f24-63f3fe273450@gmail.com \
--to=mtk.manpages@gmail.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=axboe@fb.com \
--cc=linux-api@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp \
--cc=socketpair@gmail.com \
--cc=vegard.nossum@oracle.com \
--cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
--cc=w@1wt.eu \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
Powered by JetHome