linux-ext4 - Re: Problem with delayed allocation

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]

Message-ID: <20080805134722.GA12544@mit.edu>
Date:	Tue, 5 Aug 2008 09:47:23 -0400
From:	Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>
To:	"Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Problem with delayed allocation

On Tue, Aug 05, 2008 at 06:51:33PM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
> This should not be needed. I was trying to force the pages to writeback.
> generic_sync_sb_inodes actually move  the inode to s_dirty if the
> pages_skipped differ after a writeback. But the confusing part is we
> are not looking at s_dirty list again. We move s_dirty and s_more_io to s_io
> only once in queue_io

Yes, but ext4_da_writepages() gets called twice in the __fsync_super()
code path, right?  Once with wbc->sync_mode set to WB_SYNC_HOLD, and
once with wbc->sync_mode set to wbc->sync_mode set to WB_SYNC_ALL,
corresponding to sync_inodes_sb() getting called twice, once with
wait=0 and once with wait=1.

						- Ted
--
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