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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Mon, 29 Aug 2011 21:54:39 +1000
From:	Anton Blanchard <>
To:	Theodore Tso <tytso@....EDU>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] percpu_counter: Put a reasonable upper bound on

Hi Ted,

> I understand why we would want to reduce this number.
> Unfortunately, the question is what do we do if all 1024 threads try
> to do buffered writes into the file system at the same instant, when
> we have less than 4 megabytes of space left?
> The problem is that we can then do more writes than we have space, and
> we will only find out about it at write back time, when the process
> may have exited already -- at which point data loss is almost
> inevitable.  (We could keep the data in cache and frantically page
> the system administrator to delete some files to make room for dirty
> data, but that's probably not going to end well….)
> What we can do if we must clamp this threshold is to also increase the
> threshold at which we shift away from delayed allocation.  We'll then
> allocate each block at write time, which does mean more CPU and 
> less efficient allocation of blocks, but if we're down to our last 4
> megabytes, there's probably not much we can do that will be efficient
> as far as block layout anyway….

Thanks for the explanation, I'll go back and take another look.

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