linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] [PATCH] A clean approach to writeout throttling

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:	Tue, 11 Dec 2007 00:06:15 +0200
From:	"Pekka Enberg" <penberg@...helsinki.fi>
To:	"Jonathan Corbet" <corbet@....net>
Cc:	"Daniel Phillips" <phillips@...nq.net>,
	"Andrew Morton" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"Peter Zijlstra" <peterz@...radead.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] [PATCH] A clean approach to writeout throttling

Hi,

On Dec 10, 2007 11:31 PM, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net> wrote:
> I'm just getting around to looking at this.  One thing jumped out at me:
>
> > +     if (bio->bi_throttle) {
> > +             struct request_queue *q = bio->bi_queue;
> > +             bio->bi_throttle = 0; /* or detect multiple endio and err? */
> > +             atomic_add(bio->bi_throttle, &q->available);
> > +             wake_up(&q->throttle_wait);
> > +     }
>
> I'm feeling like I must be really dumb, but...how can that possibly
> work?  You're zeroing >bi_throttle before adding it back into
> q->available, so the latter will never increase...

Heh, well, that's ok as long as bio->bi_vcnt is set to zero and I think we
have some md raid drivers do just that... ;-)

                                Pekka
--
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/