linux-kernel - Re: [rfc][patch 1/3] block: non-atomic queue

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: <20071218081350.GA32114@wotan.suse.de>
Date:	Tue, 18 Dec 2007 09:13:50 +0100
From:	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
To:	Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
Cc:	linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [rfc][patch 1/3] block: non-atomic queue_flags prep

On Tue, Dec 18, 2007 at 08:44:40AM +0100, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 15 2007, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > This is just an idea I had, which might make request processing a little
> > bit cheaper depending on queue behaviour. For example if it is getting plugged
> > unplugged frequently (as I think is the case for some database workloads),
> > then we might save one or two atomic operations per request.
> > 
> > Anyway, I'm not completely sure if I have ensured all queue_flags users are
> > safe (I think md may need a bit of help). But overall it seems quite doable.
> 
> Looks ok to me, I'll throw it into the testing mix. Thanks Nick!

OK... actually if you are expecting it to be widely tested, can you change
the BUG_ONs in queue_flag_set / queue_flag_clear into WARN_ON?

That way it's less likely to take down people's systems...

Thanks!
--
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/