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: <ZJO4OAYhJlXOBXMf@casper.infradead.org>
Date:   Thu, 22 Jun 2023 03:55:52 +0100
From:   Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To:     Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
Cc:     Jeremy Bongio <bongiojp@...il.com>, Ted Tso <tytso@....edu>,
        "Darrick J . Wong" <djwong@...nel.org>,
        Allison Henderson <allison.henderson@...cle.com>,
        linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/1] iomap regression for aio dio 4k writes

On Thu, Jun 22, 2023 at 11:55:23AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> Ok, so having spent a bit more thought on this away from the office
> this morning, I think there is a generic way we can avoid deferring
> completions for pure overwrites.

OK, this is how we can, but should we?  The same amount of work
needs to be done, no matter whether we do it in interrupt context or
workqueue context.  Doing it in interrupt context has lower latency,
but maybe allows us to batch up the work and so get better bandwidth.
And we can't handle other interrupts while we're handling this one,
so from a whole-system perspective, I think we'd rather do the work in
the workqueue.

Latency is important for reads, but why is it important for writes?
There's such a thing as a dependent read, but writes are usually buffered
and we can wait as long as we like for a write to complete.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ