On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 06:22:48PM +0200, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
On (11/09/13 17:55), Simo Sorce wrote:
>On Wed, 2013-09-11 at 21:21 +0200, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
>> On (11/09/13 12:50), Simo Sorce wrote:
>> >On Wed, 2013-09-11 at 17:39 +0200, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
>> >> On (11/09/13 16:30), Michal Židek wrote:
>> >> >On 09/11/2013 04:16 PM, Simo Sorce wrote:
>> >> >>On Wed, 2013-09-11 at 15:58 +0200, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
>> >> >>>On (11/09/13 09:39), Simo Sorce wrote:
>> >> >>>>On Wed, 2013-09-11 at 12:24 +0200, Lukas Slebodnik
wrote:
>> >> >>>>>ehlo,
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>>Two patches are attached.
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>>The 1st patch reverts commit
4662725ffef62b3b2502481438effa7c8fef9f80.
>> >> >>>>>"mmap_cache: Skip records which doesn't
have same hash"
>> >> >>>>> --next patch lokks nicer with recerted commit
4662725ffe
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>>The 2nd patch changes behaviour of record
chaining.
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>>LS
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>NACK, you cannot just change the record structure w/o
bumping the whole
>> >> >>>>mmap MAJOR version number.
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>Aside:
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>If we are not I am thinking whether we should do some
other
>> >> >>>>optimizations to keep the size down.
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>For example, hashes are generally relatively small
quantities as we do
>> >> >>>>not allow huge tables. If we can limit tables size to a
max of 65k
>> >> >>>>elements we could change the hash type from uint32_t to
uint16_t, and
>> >> >>>>end up using the same size we are using now.
>> >> >>>>We already limit the total mmap size to 4G as rel_prt_t
is a uint32_t,
>> >> >>>>and in practice we'll never allow maps with a very
large size as it eats
>> >> >>>>into the memory available to 32 bit processes.
>> >> >>>>So perhaps 65k for the hash tables is an acceptable
limit. (I think we
>> >> >>>>currently have a 100k limit which is probably a little
bit overblown as
>> >> >>>>a default anyway.
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>Simo.
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>I would rather reduce "uint64_t expire" into
"uint32_t expire_offset"
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>expire_offset will be time since creation of mmap cache.
>> >> >>>and uint64_t "creation_time" will be stored in
"struct sss_mc_ctx"
>> >> >>
>> >> >>Uhmm, I do agree that 4billion seconds offset is probably ok,
but then
>> >> >>it means the information is split in 2 different places, and
this will
>> >> >>make clients more complicated, as clients will have to keep
track of the
>> >> >>creation time + expiration offset now ...
>> >> >>
>> >> >>>Do you agree?
>> >> >>
>> >> >>I am not 100% convinced yet, although I do agree that it would
save
>> >> >>quite some space.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>>Do I need to increment SSS_MC_MAJOR_VNO or only
SSS_MC_MINOR_VNO?
>> >> >>
>> >> >>Major, you are completely changing the structure, an older
client cannot
>> >> >>be allowed to use the new map unless it explicitly know the
layout
>> >> >>changed.
>> >> >
>> >> >Well, if we already have to change the major version, I would go
with
>> >> >the two 32 bit next1 and nex2 members. If we really want to keep
the
>> >> >current size of the record (btw. why? We have to change the major
ver.
>> >> >anyway) then I like the two 16 bit pointers next1 and next2 more
than
>> >> >the 32 bit time offset (the memcache is just another cache layer,
so it
>> >> >does not have to be "gigantic"... 16 bit pointers are
just fine IMO).
>> >> >
>> >> I don't like 16 bit next pointers.
>> >>
>> >> Default value of hash table size is 100000 (for passwd)
>> >> It is 53% greater value than UINT_16_MAX.
>> >> If we decided to enlarge this default value in future, we would be
still
>> >> limited by UINT_16_MAX.
>> >>
>> >> I think it is not good idea to reduce size of next pointers.
>> >
>> >I am thinking we might want to change the way we create the way we
>> >handle record size to see if we can make a change that will be more
>> >future proof.
>> >
>> >If we stored the size of the records in the header and always calculate
>> >the position of b2 based on that information then we could introduce a
>> >variable size record structure. This would allow in future to increase
>> >the size of the structure for optional parameters w/o necessarily having
>> >to bump up the major version.
>> >
>> >However I want to have at the very least 64bit alignemtn always
>> >preserverd, so from 32 bytes we want to grow in 8 bytes steps, which
>> >means adding a uint32_t padding before b2.
>> totally agree.
>>
>> SSS_MC_MAJOR_VNO was increased.
>> padding was added. sizeof(struct sss_mc_ctx) will be 40
>>
>> Updated patches are attached.
>
>It looks ok to me.
>
>However, just to be clear we are planning on pushing this to 1.12 only
>right ?
>
>I am not hugely comfortable with pushing it to existing releases.
>
>Simo.
>
I found litle mistakes in function sss_mc_is_valid_rec. I used wrong hash for
finding next record in chain, and thus function sss_mc_is_valid_rec considered
record for invalid in some cases.
Here is an interdiff.
diff --git a/src/responder/nss/nsssrv_mmap_cache.c
b/src/responder/nss/nsssrv_mmap_cache.c
index 7e33b70..af23e23 100644
--- a/src/responder/nss/nsssrv_mmap_cache.c
+++ b/src/responder/nss/nsssrv_mmap_cache.c
@@ -513,7 +513,7 @@ static bool sss_mc_is_valid_rec(struct sss_mc_ctx *mcc, struct
sss_mc_rec *rec)
slot = mcc->hash_table[rec->hash1];
while (slot != MC_INVALID_VAL32 && self != rec) {
self = MC_SLOT_TO_PTR(mcc->data_table, slot, struct sss_mc_rec);
- slot = sss_mc_next_slot_with_hash(self, self->hash1);
+ slot = sss_mc_next_slot_with_hash(self, rec->hash1);
}
if (self != rec) {
return false;
@@ -524,7 +524,7 @@ static bool sss_mc_is_valid_rec(struct sss_mc_ctx *mcc, struct
sss_mc_rec *rec)
slot = mcc->hash_table[rec->hash2];
while (slot != MC_INVALID_VAL32 && self != rec) {
self = MC_SLOT_TO_PTR(mcc->data_table, slot, struct sss_mc_rec);
- slot = sss_mc_next_slot_with_hash(self, self->hash2);
+ slot = sss_mc_next_slot_with_hash(self, rec->hash2);
}
if (self != rec) {
return false;
Patches are attached.
LS
I think the current patches are ok so ACK from me. I'm not the biggest
memcache expert around, so I'd like to get a second opinion before
pushing these to master (and Michal's patches to stable branches)