linux-kernel - Re: New TRIM/UNMAP tree published (2009-05-02)

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, 03 May 2009 18:47:27 -0400
From:	Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>
To:	James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>
CC:	Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>,
	Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>,
	Boaz Harrosh <bharrosh@...asas.com>,
	Hugh Dickins <hugh@...itas.com>,
	Matthew Wilcox <willy@...ux.intel.com>,
	linux-ide@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
	Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@...il.com>,
	Mark Lord <lkml@....ca>
Subject: Re: New TRIM/UNMAP tree published (2009-05-02)

James Bottomley wrote:
> On Sun, 2009-05-03 at 15:20 -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
>> [tangent...]
>>
>> Does make you wonder if a ->init_rq_fn() would be helpful, one that 
>> could perform gfp_t allocations rather than GFP_ATOMIC?  The idea being 
>> to call ->init_rq_fn() almost immediately after creation of struct 
>> request, by the struct request creator.
> 
> Isn't that what the current prep_fn actually is?

> It's hard to see how ... prep_rq_fn is already called pretty early ...
> almost as soon as the elevator has decided to spit out the request

prep_rq_fn is called very, very late -- from elv_next_request(), which 
is called from ->request_fn.

As quoted above, I'm talking about something closer to -creation- time, 
not -execution- time.


>> The creator of struct request generally has more freedom to sleep, and 
>> it seems logical to give low-level drivers a "fill in LLD-specific info" 
>> hook BEFORE the request is ever added to a request_queue.
> 
> Unfortunately it's not really possible to find a sleeping context in
> there:  The elevators have to operate from the current
> elv_next_request() context, which, in most drivers can either be user or
> interrupt.

Sure, because that's further down the pipeline at the request execution 
stage.  Think more like make_request time...

> The ideal for REQ_TYPE_DISCARD seems to be to force a page allocation
> tied to a bio when it's issued at the top.  That way everyone has enough
> memory when it comes down the stack (both extents and WRITE SAME sector
> will fit into a page ... although only just for WRITE SAME on 4k
> sectors).

Makes sense...

	Jeff


--
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/