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] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Tue, 18 Apr 2023 19:29:50 -0600
From:   Jens Axboe <>
To:     Christoph Hellwig <>,
        "Darrick J. Wong" <>
Cc:     Miklos Szeredi <>,
        Bernd Schubert <>,,,,,
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] fs: add FMODE_DIO_PARALLEL_WRITE flag

On 4/15/23 11:54?PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 14, 2023 at 08:36:12AM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
>> IIUC uring wants to avoid the situation where someone sends 300 writes
>> to the same file, all of which end up in background workers, and all of
>> which then contend on exclusive i_rwsem.  Hence it has some hashing
>> scheme that executes io requests serially if they hash to the same value
>> (which iirc is the inode number?) to prevent resource waste.
>> This flag turns off that hashing behavior on the assumption that each of
>> those 300 writes won't serialize on the other 299 writes, hence it's ok
>> to start up 300 workers.
>> (apologies for precoffee garbled response)
> It might be useful if someone (Jens?) could clearly document the
> assumptions for this flag.

I guess it can be summed up as the common case should not be using
exclusive (per file/inode) locking. If file extensions need exclusive
locking that's less of a concern, as I don't think it's unreasonable to
expect that to require stricter locking.

Jens Axboe

Powered by blists - more mailing lists