linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH, RFC] Use WRITE_SYNC in __block_write_full_page() if WBC_SYNC

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:	Sun, 4 Jan 2009 19:21:09 -0500
From:	Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
	Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH, RFC] Use WRITE_SYNC in __block_write_full_page() if
	WBC_SYNC_ALL

On Sun, Jan 04, 2009 at 03:19:27PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> >  Still, if we are
> > submitting I/O which we are going to end up waiting on, we really
> > should submit it with WRITE_SYNC, and this patch should optimize
> > writes in other situations; for example, if we fsync() a file, we will
> > also end up calling block_write_full_page(), and so supplying the
> > WRITE_SYNC hint to the block layer would be a Good Thing.
> 
> Is it?  WRITE_SYNC means "unplug the queue after this bh/BIO".  By setting
> it against every bh, don't we risk the generation of more BIOs and
> the loss of merging opportunities?

Good point, yeah, that's a problem.  Some of IO schedulers also use
REQ_RW_SYNC to prioritize the I/O's above non-sync I/O's.  That's an
orthognal issue to unplugging the queue; it would be useful to be able
to mark an I/O as "this is bio is one that we will eventually end up
waiting to complete", separately from "please unplug the the queue
after this bio submitted".

BTW, I notice that the CFQ io scheduler prioritizes REQ_RW_META bio's
behind REQ_RW_SYNC bio's, but ahead of normal bio requeuss.  But as
far as I can tell nothing is actually marking requests REQ_RW_META.
What is the intended use for this, and are there plans to make other
I/O schedulers honor REQ_RW_META?

							- 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