linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH] ext4: Don't call sb_issue_discard() in ext4_free

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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 9 Nov 2010 15:03:18 -0500
From:	Ted Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
To:	Jiaying Zhang <jiayingz@...gle.com>
Cc:	Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>,
	Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ext4: Don't call sb_issue_discard() in
 ext4_free_blocks()

On Tue, Nov 09, 2010 at 10:00:37AM -0800, Jiaying Zhang wrote:
> I would like to spend some time to see whether we can add
> sb_issue_discard() somewhere else for non-journaled mode.
> It is a useful feature to be included for both modes.

It certainly can be done, but we'll have to do the trim from a kernel
thread or workqueue context.  (Of course, we need to make sure that
the blocks don't get reused until the trim happens --- or, if we want
to use those blocks, that we take them off the to-be-trimmed list
before we reuse them.)

I am a bit concerned about just adding a new thread, though.
Especially if it's per filesystem, since on a system with a very high
spindle/ext4 file system count, this could get a bit crazy.  It's a
bit better in 2.6.36 now that with concurrency managed workqueues,
there's only one workqueue thread per file system, instead of one
workqueue thread per file system per core (so on a system with 50
spindles and 32 cores, there would be 1600 workqueue threads!).

						- Ted

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html