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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Thu, 8 Mar 2012 12:20:26 -0800
From:	Boaz Harrosh <>
To:	Chris Mason <>, "Ted Ts'o" <>,
	Zach Brown <>, Eric Sandeen <>,
	<>, <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH, RFC] Don't do page stablization if !CONFIG_BLKDEV_INTEGRITY

On 03/08/2012 10:09 AM, Chris Mason wrote:
> But, why are we writeback for a second or more?  Aren't there other
> parts of this we would want to fix as well?
> I'm not against only turning on stable pages when they are needed, but
> the code that isn't the default tends to be somewhat less used.  So it
> does increase testing burden when we do want stable pages, and it tends
> to make for awkward bugs that are hard to reproduce because someone
> neglects to mention it.
> IMHO it's much more important to nail down the 2 second writeback
> latency. That's not good.

I think I understand this one. It's do to the sync nature introduced
by page_waiting in mkwrite.

The system is loaded everything is somewhat 2 second or more in a lag.
The 2 sec (or more) comes from the max-dirty-limit/disk-speed so any
IO you'll submit will probably be on stable disk 2 sec later. (In theory,
any power fail will loose all dirty pages which is in our case

Now usually that's fine because everything is queued and waits a bit
evenly distributed and you wait, theoretically, only the rate of your
IO. But here, all of a sudden, you are not allowed to be queued and you
are waiting for the head of queue to be actually done, and the app is
just frozen.

Actually now when I think of it the pages were already submitted for
them to be waited on. So the 2-sec is the depth of the block+scsi+target
queues. I guess they can be pretty deep.

I have a theory of how we can fix that 2-sec wait, by avoiding writeback of
the last n pages of an inode who's mtime is less then 2-sec. This would
solve any sequential writer wait penalty, which is Ted's case

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