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  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Thu, 9 Sep 2010 13:11:07 +0200 (CEST)
From:	Lukas Czerner <>
To:	Andreas Dilger <>
cc:	Lukas Czerner <>,,,,
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] Add helper function for blkdev_issue_zeroout

On Wed, 8 Sep 2010, Andreas Dilger wrote:

> On 2010-09-08, at 10:59, Lukas Czerner wrote:
> > +static inline int sb_issue_zeroout(struct super_block *sb,
> > +				   sector_t block, sector_t nr_blocks)
> > +{
> > +	block <<= (sb->s_blocksize_bits - 9);
> > +	nr_blocks <<= (sb->s_blocksize_bits - 9);
> > +	return blkdev_issue_zeroout(sb->s_bdev, block, nr_blocks, GFP_KERNEL,
> > +}
> While I can understand that we might need a barrier for this (to avoid
> it being reordered with later writes that are using these blocks), I'm
> not sure it needs to wait for previous IO to complete.

We are waiting for submitted bios to finish. Especially in my patch it
is needed, because I need to know how long it takes to get this IO on
disk do determine next schedule time, depending on the IO load. I am not
sure about this, but when it would not wait it will complete fairly
quickly and my "IO throttling" code would be useless.

And if I am wrong, and you are really convinced that it should not wait,
what about sb_issue_discard(), it is also waiting for completion, is it


> Cheers, Andreas
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists