linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: block tree build failure

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:	Tue, 7 Jul 2009 16:31:50 +0200
From:	Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
To:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc:	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
	linux-next@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	"Zhang, Yanmin" <yanmin_zhang@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: block tree build failure

On Tue, Jul 07 2009, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 07, 2009 at 08:38:46AM +0200, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > >  SYSCALL_DEFINE0(sync)
> > >  {
> > > -	wakeup_pdflush(0);
> > > +	wakeup_flusher_threads(0);
> > >  	sync_filesystems(0);
> > >  	sync_filesystems(1);
> > >  	if (unlikely(laptop_mode))
> > 
> > That is correct! I have just now updated for-next as well, so your next
> > pull should lose this fixup.
> 
> It's not correct at all.  We'll how have various flusher threads doing
> async syncs, just to wait for them again synchronously.  The right thing
> to do here is to queue up the data integrity sync to per-bdi threads and
> execute those in parallel.

Sorry, I didn't judge the validity of the original patch, merely that
the wakeup_pdflush() -> wakeup_flusher_threads() is the correct patch in
the context of the per-bdi flushing.

-- 
Jens Axboe

--
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/