Re: [PATCH 2/3] fat: add the msdos_format_name() filename cache

["Caleb D.S. Brzezinski" <calebdsb@protonmail.com>]

Hi Al,

"Al Viro" <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk> writes:

> On Sun, Aug 29, 2021 at 02:25:29PM +0000, Caleb D.S. Brzezinski wrote:
>> Implement the main msdos_format_name() filename cache. If used as a
>> module, all memory allocated for the cache is freed when the module is
>> de-registered.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Caleb D.S. Brzezinski <calebdsb@protonmail.com>
>> ---
>>  fs/fat/namei_msdos.c | 35 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>  1 file changed, 35 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/fs/fat/namei_msdos.c b/fs/fat/namei_msdos.c
>> index 7561674b1..f9d4f63c3 100644
>> --- a/fs/fat/namei_msdos.c
>> +++ b/fs/fat/namei_msdos.c
>> @@ -124,6 +124,16 @@ static int msdos_format_name(const unsigned char *name, int len,
>>  	unsigned char *walk;
>>  	unsigned char c;
>>  	int space;
>> +	u64 hash;
>> +	struct msdos_name_node *node;
>> +
>> +	/* check if the name is already in the cache */
>> +
>> +	hash = msdos_fname_hash(name);
>> +	if (find_fname_in_cache(res, hash))
>> +		return 0;

> Huh?  How could that possibly work, seeing that
> 	* your hash function only looks at the first 8 characters

My understanding was that the maximum length of the name considered when
passed to msdos_format_name() was eight characters; see:

		while (walk - res < 8)

and

		for (walk = res; len && walk - res < 8; walk++) {

If that's an incorrect understanding, then yes, it definitely wouldn't
work. A larger, more computationally intensive hash function would be
required, which would most likely cancel out the improved lookup from
the cache.

> 	* your find_fname_in_cache() assumes that hash collisions
> are impossible, which is... unlikely, considering the nature of
> that hash function

If the names are 8 character limited, then logically any name with the
exact same set of characters would "collide" into the same formatted
name. Again, if I misunderstood the constraints on the filenames, then
yes, this is unnecessary.

> Out of curiosity, how have you tested that thing?

I've used it on my own FAT32 drives for profiling, run it through
kmemleak, ksan, some stress tests, etc. for a few weeks. Like I said, I
benchmarked it and it shaved about 0.2ms of time off my most common use
case.

Thanks.
Caleb B.

-- 
"Come now, and let us reason together," Says the LORD
    -- Isaiah 1:18a, NASB