linux-kernel - Re: Bug in kernel 2.6.31, Slow wb

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:	Wed, 29 Jul 2009 18:12:26 -0700
From:	Martin Bligh <mbligh@...gle.com>
To:	Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
Cc:	Chad Talbott <ctalbott@...gle.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	Michael Rubin <mrubin@...gle.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...gle.com>,
	"sandeen@...hat.com" <sandeen@...hat.com>,
	Michael Davidson <md@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: Bug in kernel 2.6.31, Slow wb_kupdate writeout

> I agree on the unification of kupdate and sync paths. In fact I had a
> patch for doing this. And I'd recommend to do it in two patches:
> one to fix the congestion case, another to do the code unification.
>
> The sync path don't care whether requeue_io() or redirty_tail() is
> used, because they disregard the time stamps totally - only order of
> inodes matters (ie. starvation), which is same for requeue_io()/redirty_tail().

But, as I understand it, both paths share the same lists, so we still have
to be consistent?

Also, you set flags like more_io higher up in sync_sb_inodes() based on
whether there's anything in s_more_io queue, so it still seems to have
some effect to me?
--
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/