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: <bug-217965-13602-QP94tPPNpk@https.bugzilla.kernel.org/>
Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2024 04:44:08 +0000
From: bugzilla-daemon@...nel.org
To: linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [Bug 217965] ext4(?) regression since 6.5.0 on sata hdd

https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=217965

--- Comment #59 from Ojaswin Mujoo (ojaswin.mujoo@....com) ---
Hi Matthew,

Thanks for testing out the patch and for sharing the results with and without
CR_BEST_AVAIL_LEN commented. Would it be possible for you to add perf probes as
mentioned in comment 36 and share the result. That'd be helpful in
understanding why CR_BEST_AVAIL_LEN is getting stuck. Basically, I am
interested in seeing how the scan is happening in CR_GOAL_LEN_FAST vs
CR_BEST_AVAIL_LEN.

[1] https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=217965#c36

Also, another thing I'd request you to try is, instead of commenting out the
code can you run:

$ echo "0" > /sys/fs/ext4/<dev>/mb_best_avail_max_trim_order

and rerun the test. This disables most of the code but keeps some of the
initial logic. Might help zero down if the issue is in the initial logic or the
disabled code.

Thanks again,
ojaswin

-- 
You may reply to this email to add a comment.

You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching the assignee of the bug.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists