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 17:19:34 -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-mm@...ck.org, Michael Rubin <mrubin@...gle.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...gle.com>, sandeen@...hat.com,
	Michael Davidson <md@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: Bug in kernel 2.6.31, Slow wb_kupdate writeout

BTW, can you explain this code at the bottom of generic_sync_sb_inodes
for me?

                if (wbc->nr_to_write <= 0) {
                        wbc->more_io = 1;
                        break;
                }

I don't understand why we are setting more_io here? AFAICS, more_io
means there's more stuff to write ... I would think we'd set this if
nr_to_write was > 0 ?

Or just have the section below brought up above this
break check and do:

if (!list_empty(&sb->s_more_io) || !list_empty(&sb->s_io))
        wbc->more_io = 1;

Am I just misunderstanding the intent of more_io ?
--
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/