linux-kernel - Re: frequent softlockups with 3.10rc6.

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 4 Jul 2013 00:19:40 -0700
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
Cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
	Andrey Vagin <avagin@...nvz.org>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Subject: Re: frequent softlockups with 3.10rc6.

On Wed, 3 Jul 2013 14:49:01 +1000 Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 02, 2013 at 08:28:42PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 8:07 PM, Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Then that test would become
> > >>
> > >>         if (wbc->sync_mode == WB_SYNC_SINGLE) {
> > >>
> > >> instead, and now "sync_mode" would actually describe what mode of
> > >> syncing the caller wants, without that hacky special "we know what the
> > >> caller _really_ meant by looking at *which* caller it is".
> > >
> > > The problem is that all the code that currently looks for
> > > WB_SYNC_ALL for it's behavioural cue during writeback now has
> > > multiple different modes they have to handle.  IOWs, it's not a
> > > straight forward conversion process. WB_SYNC_ALL reaches right down
> > > into filesystem ->writepages implementations and they all need to be
> > > changed if we make up a new sync_mode behaviour.
> > 
> > I have to admit that I absolutely detest our current "sync_mode" to
> > begin with, so I'd personally be happy to see some major surgery in
> > this area.

Forgive me, I was young.

> 
> > WB_SYNC_NONE semantics would presumably be "just
> > start writeout" (so it would become WB_SYNC_WRITE), while WB_SYNC_ALL
> > would become (WB_SYNC_BEFORE | WB_SYNC_WRITE | WB_SYNC_AFTER), but
> > then the "for_sync" case would remove WB_SYNC_AFTER, because it does
> > its own waiting after.
> 
> Not exactly. WB_SYNC_NONE currently means "best effort writeback"

Yup.  WB_SYNC_NONE means "this is for memory cleaning" and WB_SYNC_ALL
means "this is for data integrity".  They're two quite different
concepts whose implementations share a ton of code.

That being said, yes, sync_mode is pretty dorky and switching to a set
of very carefully defined flags makes sense.

--
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/