linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH] jbd2: avoid the concurrent data writeback

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: <20101116161337.10733417@feng-i7>
Date:	Tue, 16 Nov 2010 16:13:37 +0800
From:	Feng Tang <feng.tang@...el.com>
To:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
CC:	"Wu, Fengguang" <fengguang.wu@...el.com>,
	"linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org" <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] jbd2: avoid the concurrent data writeback

Hi Hellwig,

On Mon, 15 Nov 2010 19:27:32 +0800
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org> wrote:

> On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 05:59:43PM +0800, Feng Tang wrote:
> > + *
> > + * Sometimes when this get called, the host inode may be under data
> > + * syncing initiated by flush thread(especially for a large file),
> > and 
> > + * in such situation, we should skip this path of writeback
> >   */
> >  static int journal_submit_inode_data_buffers(struct address_space
> > *mapping) {
> > @@ -181,6 +185,13 @@ static int
> > journal_submit_inode_data_buffers(struct address_space
> > *mapping) .range_end = i_size_read(mapping->host), };
> >  
> > +	spin_lock(&inode_lock);
> > +	if (mapping->host->i_state & I_SYNC) {
> > +		spin_unlock(&inode_lock);
> > +		return 0;
> > +	}
> > +	spin_unlock(&inode_lock);
> > +
> 
> inode_lock is not exported to modules, and that's for a pretty good
> reason.  I think you want to change this code at a higher level to not
> compete with the flusher threads at all.
> 
Good point. The alternative I can think of is to use writeback_in_progress(),
thus the check will be changed to:

	if (writeback_in_progress(mapping->backing_dev_info))
		return 0;
This have the same effect as the original patch.


Thanks,
Feng
--
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