linux-kernel - Re: PATCH] fix potential latency issues in JBD's journal code

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: <20080705141335.GB20240@mit.edu>
Date:	Sat, 5 Jul 2008 10:13:35 -0400
From:	Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>
To:	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
Cc:	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, jens.axboe@...cle.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: PATCH] fix potential latency issues in JBD's journal code

Acked-by: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>

I will make the corresponding change for ext4.  Is the "Properly
notify block layer of sync writes" going to be pushed to mainline?  I
can't add SWRITE_SYNC to the ext4 tree without growing a dependency to
this patch.

> This patch modifies two key places that submit IO that then immediately will
> get waited on. The JBD code is slightly convoluted, but after some chasing of
> abstraction layers, these instances seem to really be of this pattern.
> There's one case in checkpoint.c which is another candidate, but I've not
> been able to get my head around the code enough to verify that that one
> really is of this pattern as well, so for now I'll leave that one as is.

You mean the ll_rw_block() SWRITE in __flush_patch?  Yep, seems to be
of the same pattern.

						- Ted

--
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/