Re: [PATCH] selinux: reduce locking overhead in inode_free_security()

[Stephen Smalley]

On 06/10/2015 04:17 PM, Waiman Long wrote:
> The inode_free_security() function just took the superblock's isec_lock
> before checking and trying to remove the inode security struct from the
> linked list. In many cases, the list was empty and so the lock taking
> is wasteful as no useful work is done. On multi-socket systems with
> a large number of CPUs, there can also be a fair amount of spinlock
> contention on the isec_lock if many tasks are exiting at the same time.
> 
> This patch changes the code to check the state of the list first
> before taking the lock and attempting to dequeue it. We still need
> to do the empty list test inside the lock for safety reason, but it
> minimizes the chance of unnecessary spinlock contention.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@xxxxxx>
> ---
>  security/selinux/hooks.c |   17 +++++++++++++----
>  1 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/security/selinux/hooks.c b/security/selinux/hooks.c
> index 7dade28..cd736c3 100644
> --- a/security/selinux/hooks.c
> +++ b/security/selinux/hooks.c
> @@ -254,10 +254,19 @@ static void inode_free_security(struct inode *inode)
>  	struct inode_security_struct *isec = inode->i_security;
>  	struct superblock_security_struct *sbsec = inode->i_sb->s_security;
>  
> -	spin_lock(&sbsec->isec_lock);
> -	if (!list_empty(&isec->list))
> -		list_del_init(&isec->list);
> -	spin_unlock(&sbsec->isec_lock);
> +	/*
> +	 * As not all inode security structures are in a list, we check for
> +	 * empty list outside of the lock to make sure that we won't waste
> +	 * time taking a lock doing nothing. Lock taking can be slow
> +	 * especially if the lock is being contended. We do, however, need
> +	 * to recheck the list again before deleting it for safety.
> +	 */
> +	if (!list_empty(&isec->list)) {
> +		spin_lock(&sbsec->isec_lock);
> +		if (!list_empty(&isec->list))
> +			list_del_init(&isec->list);
> +		spin_unlock(&sbsec->isec_lock);
> +	}
>  
>  	/*
>  	 * The inode may still be referenced in a path walk and
> 

Do we really need the second list_empty() test at all?
Once removed, inode security structures are never re-added to the list.
For comparison, inode_sb_list_del() only tests list_empty() outside the
lock.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/