| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20090105193820.GW32491@kernel.dk> Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2009 20:38:20 +0100 From: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com> To: Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH, RFC] Use WRITE_SYNC in __block_write_full_page() if WBC_SYNC_ALL On Mon, Jan 05 2009, Theodore Tso wrote: > So long-term, I suspect the hueristic which makes sense is that in the > case where there is an fsync() in progress, any writes which take > place as a result of that fsync (which includes the journal records as > well as ordered writes that are being forced out as a result of > data=ordered and which block the fsync from returning), should get a > hint which propagates down to the block layer that these writes *are* > synchronous in that someone is waiting for them to complete. They If someone is waiting for them, they are by definition sync! > shouldn't necessarily be prioritized ahead of other reads (unless they > are readahead operations that couldn't be combined with reads that > *are* synchronous that someone is waiting for completion), but they > should be prioritized ahead of asynchronous writes. And that is *exactly* what flagging the write as sync will do... -- Jens Axboe -- 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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists