linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 1/7] cpuset write dirty map

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]

Date:	Wed, 11 Jul 2007 12:18:34 -0700
From:	Ethan Solomita <solo@...gle.com>
To:	Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
CC:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...gle.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl
Subject: Re: [RFC 1/7] cpuset write dirty map

	Christoph -- I have a question about one part of the patches. In
throttle_vm_writeout() you added a clause that checks for __GFP_FS |
__GFP_IO and if they're not both set it calls blk_congestion_wait()
immediately and then returns, no change for looping. Two questions:

1. This seems like an unrelated bug fix. Should you submit it as a
standalone patch?

2. You put this gfp check before the check for get_dirty_limits. It's
possible that this will block even though without your change it would
have returned straight away. Would it better, instead of adding the
if-clause at the top of the function, to embed the gfp check at the end
of the for-loop after calling blk_congestion_wait?

	-- Ethan

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/