linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH] ext4: Fix the soft lockup with multi block allocator.

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20071224184532.GA3421@webber.adilger.int>
Date:	Mon, 24 Dec 2007 11:45:32 -0700
From:	Andreas Dilger <adilger@....com>
To:	Alex Tomas <alex.tomas@....com>
Cc:	"Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	tytso@....edu, cmm@...ibm.com, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ext4: Fix the soft lockup with multi block allocator.

On Dec 24, 2007  21:18 +0300, Alex Tomas wrote:
> Andreas Dilger wrote:
>> On Dec 21, 2007  16:39 +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
>>> @@ -3790,7 +3782,9 @@ repeat:
>>>   	/* if we still need more blocks and some PAs were used, try again */
>>>  	if (free < needed && busy) {
>>> +		busy = 0;
>>>  		ext4_unlock_group(sb, group);
>>> +		schedule_timeout(HZ);
>>>  		goto repeat;
>>>  	}
>>
>> Is there nothing we could actually wait on instead of just sleeping for
>> 1 second?
>
> actually it was done for simplicity - in my tests busy PA happened quite rare.
> I have no objection to improve this with special wait queue.

If it is a very rare case, then I have no objection.  I just wanted to
avoid some sort of "Nagle" case where suddenly a workload is taking 1s
instead of 1ms to complete each IO.

Cheers, Andreas
--
Andreas Dilger
Sr. Staff Engineer, Lustre Group
Sun Microsystems of Canada, Inc.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html