linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] block: Avoid deadlocks with bio allocation by stacking drivers

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, 11 Sep 2012 11:45:53 -0700
From:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:	Muthu Kumar <muthu.lkml@...il.com>
Cc:	Kent Overstreet <koverstreet@...gle.com>,
	linux-bcache@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	dm-devel@...hat.com, axboe@...nel.dk,
	Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>,
	Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@...hat.com>, bharrosh@...asas.com,
	david@...morbit.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] block: Avoid deadlocks with bio allocation by
 stacking drivers

Hello,

On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 11:36:28AM -0700, Muthu Kumar wrote:
> Does this preserve the CPU from which the bio was submitted
> originally. Not familiar with cmwq, may be Tejun can clarify.
> 
> Tejun - the question is, do we honor the rq_affinity with the above
> rescue worker implementation?

The work item would run from the same CPU but there isn't any
mechanism to keep track of the issuing CPU if there are multiple bios
to be rescued.  Isn't rq_affinity an optimization hint?  If so, I
don't think it matters here.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun
--
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/