linux-kernel - Re: PATCH] fix potential latency issues in JBD's journal code

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>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sun, 6 Jul 2008 00:15:02 -0400
From:	Theodore Tso <tytso@....EDU>
To:	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
Cc:	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, jens.axboe@...cle.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: PATCH] fix potential latency issues in JBD's journal code

On Fri, Jul 04, 2008 at 07:29:29PM -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> @@ -165,7 +165,7 @@ static void journal_do_submit_data(struct buffer_head **wbuf, int bufs)
>  	for (i = 0; i < bufs; i++) {
>  		wbuf[i]->b_end_io = end_buffer_write_sync;
>  		/* We use-up our safety reference in submit_bh() */
> -		submit_bh(WRITE, wbuf[i]);
> +		submit_bh(WRITE_SYNC, wbuf[i]);
>  	}
>  }

So I started looking at this patch more closely when trying to
replicate it for ext4.  Don't you want to only use WRITE_SYNC() only
for the very last time in the loop?  Otherwise you end up unplugging
the queue after each bufferhead, which wouldn't be a good thing, right?

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