linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm: don't cap request size based on read-ahead setting

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:   Wed, 16 Nov 2016 11:38:20 -0700
From:   Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
To:     Hillf Danton <hillf.zj@...baba-inc.com>,
        'Andrew Morton' <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        'Linus Torvalds' <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: don't cap request size based on read-ahead setting

On 11/16/2016 08:12 AM, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 11/16/2016 12:17 AM, Hillf Danton wrote:
>> On Wednesday, November 16, 2016 12:31 PM Jens Axboe wrote:
>>> @@ -369,10 +369,25 @@ ondemand_readahead(struct address_space *mapping,
>>>              bool hit_readahead_marker, pgoff_t offset,
>>>              unsigned long req_size)
>>>   {
>>> -    unsigned long max = ra->ra_pages;
>>> +    unsigned long io_pages, max_pages;
>>>       pgoff_t prev_offset;
>>>
>>>       /*
>>> +     * If bdi->io_pages is set, that indicates the (soft) max IO size
>>> +     * per command for that device. If we have that available, use
>>> +     * that as the max suitable read-ahead size for this IO. Instead of
>>> +     * capping read-ahead at ra_pages if req_size is larger, we can go
>>> +     * up to io_pages. If io_pages isn't set, fall back to using
>>> +     * ra_pages as a safe max.
>>> +     */
>>> +    io_pages = inode_to_bdi(mapping->host)->io_pages;
>>> +    if (io_pages) {
>>> +        max_pages = max_t(unsigned long, ra->ra_pages, req_size);
>>> +        io_pages = min(io_pages, max_pages);
>>
>> Doubt if you mean
>>         max_pages = min(io_pages, max_pages);
>
> No, that is what I mean. We want the maximum of the RA setting and the
> user IO size, but the minimum of that and the device max command size.

Johannes pointed out that I'm an idiot - a last minute edit introduced
this typo, and I was too blind to spot it when you sent that email this
morning. So yes, it should of course be:

	max_pages = min(io_pages, max_pages);

like the first version I posted. I'll post a v3...

-- 
Jens Axboe