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
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 14:32:20 -0500 From: Mark Lord <lkml@....ca> To: Mark Lord <liml@....ca> Cc: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>, Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>, IDE/ATA development list <linux-ide@...r.kernel.org>, Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-scsi <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: QUEUE_FLAG_CLUSTER: not working in 2.6.24 ? Mark Lord wrote: > Jens Axboe wrote: >> On Thu, Dec 13 2007, Mark Lord wrote: >>> Matthew Wilcox wrote: >>>> On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 01:48:18PM -0500, Mark Lord wrote: >>>>> Problem confirmed. 2.6.23.8 regularly generates segments up to >>>>> 64KB for libata, >>>>> but 2.6.24 uses only 4KB segments and a *few* 8KB segments. >>>> Just a suspicion ... could this be slab vs slub? ie check your configs >>>> are the same / similar between the two kernels. >>> .. >>> >>> Mmmm.. a good thought, that one. >>> But I just rechecked, and both have CONFIG_SLAB=y >>> >>> My guess is that something got changed around when Jens >>> reworked the block layer for 2.6.24. >>> I'm going to dig around in there now. >> >> I didn't rework the block layer for 2.6.24 :-). The core block layer >> changes since 2.6.23 are: >> >> - Support for empty barriers. Not a likely candidate. >> - Shared tag queue fixes. Totally unlikely. >> - sg chaining support. Not likely. >> - The bio changes from Neil. Of the bunch, the most likely suspects in >> this area, since it changes some of the code involved with merges and >> blk_rq_map_sg(). >> - Lots of simple stuff, again very unlikely. >> >> Anyway, it sounds odd for this to be a block layer problem if you do see >> occasional segments being merged. So it sounds more like the input data >> having changed. >> >> Why not just bisect it? > .. > > Because the early 2.6.24 series failed to boot on this machine > due to bugs in the block layer -- so the code that caused this regression > is probably in the stuff from before the kernels became usable here. .. That sounds more harsh than intended --> the earlier 2.6.24 kernels (up to the first couple of -rc* ones failed here because of incompatibilities between the block/bio changes and libata. That's better, I think! Cheers -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists