linux-ext4 - Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3] block: Fix fsync slowness with CFQ cgroups

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: <20110628144744.GF17552@redhat.com>
Date:	Tue, 28 Jun 2011 10:47:44 -0400
From:	Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>
To:	Konstantin Khlebnikov <khlebnikov@...allels.com>
Cc:	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"jaxboe@...ionio.com" <jaxboe@...ionio.com>,
	"linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org" <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
	"jmoyer@...hat.com" <jmoyer@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3] block: Fix fsync slowness with CFQ cgroups

On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 06:42:57PM +0400, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote:
> Vivek Goyal wrote:
> >On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 03:00:39PM +0400, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote:
> >>Vivek Goyal wrote:
> >>>This patch series seems to be working for me. I did testing for ext4 only.
> >>>This series is based on for-3.1/core branch of Jen's block tree.
> >>>Konstantin, can you please give it a try and see if it fixes your
> >>>issue.
> >>
> >>It works for me too, for ext3 and ext4, on top 3.0-rc5, after these trivial fixes:
> >>
> >>--- a/block/cfq-iosched.c
> >>+++ b/block/cfq-iosched.c
> >>@@ -1511,7 +1519,7 @@ static void cfq_add_rq_rb(struct request *rq)
> >>          * if that happens, put the alias on the dispatch list
> >>          */
> >>         while ((__alias = elv_rb_add(&cfqq->sort_list, rq)) != NULL)
> >>-               cfq_dispatch_insert(cfqd->queue, __alias);
> >>+               cfq_dispatch_insert(cfqd->queue, __alias, false);
> >>
> >>         if (!cfq_cfqq_on_rr(cfqq))
> >>                 cfq_add_cfqq_rr(cfqd, cfqq);
> >>@@ -3797,12 +3797,11 @@ cfq_set_depends_on_task(struct request_queue *q, struct task_struct *tsk)
> >>          */
> >>         rcu_read_lock();
> >>         if (task_blkio_cgroup(current) == task_blkio_cgroup(tsk))
> >>-               return;
> >>-       rcu_read_unlock();
> >>+               goto out_unlock_rcu;
> >>
> >>         cic = cfq_cic_lookup(cfqd, current->io_context);
> >>         if (!cic)
> >>-               return;
> >>+               goto out_unlock_rcu;
> >
> >You have done this change because you want to keep cfq_cic_lookup() also
> >in rcu read side critical section? I am assuming that it works even
> >without this. Though keeping it under rcu is probably more correct as
> >cic objects are freed in rcu manner.
> 
> No, your just forgot to relese rcu in case task_blkio_cgroup(current) == task_blkio_cgroup(tsk)

Oh, that's right. Thanks for catching this. I will fix it.

Thanks
Vivek
--
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