linux-ext4 - Re: [Bug 15906] serious performance regression in "umount" on ext4 over LVM

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:	Wed, 05 May 2010 12:27:41 +0400
From:	Dmitry Monakhov <dmonakhov@...nvz.org>
To:	Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
Cc:	linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Bug 15906] serious performance regression in "umount" on ext4 over LVM

bugzilla-daemon@...zilla.kernel.org writes:

Hi Jens,

Just FYI, we have found a regression which was caused by your famous
writeback patch 03ba3782e8dcc5b0e1efe440d33084f066e38cae
I'm not allowed to add you to CC in BZ, that's why i wrote this mail.

Before the patch __sync_filesystem() called writeback_single_inode()
directly, but now it is called indirectly (from flush-X:X task)
which require a super_block in question to be pinned.
But this is impossible to pin this SB on umount because we already
hold s_umount sem for write, so effectively we already pinned that SB.
So my proposal is to treat umount similar to WB_SYNC_ALL, and skip
pining stage.

> https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15906
>
>
> Dmitry Monakhov <dmonakhov@...nvz.org> changed:
>
>            What    |Removed                     |Added
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>                  CC|                            |dmonakhov@...nvz.org
>
>
>
>
> --- Comment #13 from Dmitry Monakhov <dmonakhov@...nvz.org>  2010-05-05 07:28:10 ---
> Yep. i've already know that issue. In fact it was broken by followng commit
>
> From 03ba3782e8dcc5b0e1efe440d33084f066e38cae Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001          
> From: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>                                        
> Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2009 09:08:54 +0200                                            
> Subject: [PATCH] writeback: switch to per-bdi threads for flushing data
>
> The problem with __sync_filesystem(0) is no longer works on umount
> because sb can not be pined s_mount sem is downed for write and s_root is NULL.
>
> And in fact ext3 is also broken in case of "-obarrier=1"
> The patch attached fix the original regression, but there is one more issue
> left
>
> A delalloc option. In fact dirty inode is still dirty even after first
> call of writeback_single_inode which is called from __sync_filesystem(0)
> due to delalloc allocation happen during inode write. So it takes second
> __sync_filesystem call to clear dirty flags. Currently i'm working on that
> issue. I hope i'll post a solution today.
--
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