linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Give kjournald a IOPRIO_CLASS

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:	Thu, 2 Oct 2008 22:00:40 -0700
From:	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Give kjournald a IOPRIO_CLASS_RT io priority

On Thu, 2 Oct 2008 21:50:26 -0700
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:

> > 
> > I also notice it's part of "file_update_time". Do we really need to
> > go all the way down to this level of synchronicity for that?
> 
> Well, we've tossed that around many times but never implemented it. 
> Once you get into the details it gets a bit nasty.  Need to keep the
> dirtiness state in the VFS (or fs) inode, and going backwards from a
> plain old buffer_head at commit time isn't possible.  We usually
> tempfixed the problem by adding increasingly fancy ways of not doing
> the atime update at all.

given that this is the write path, I was assuming this was mtime rather
than atime; doesn't change your answer though.
> 
> Of course, fixing this running-vs-committing contention point would
> fix a lot more things than just atime updates.

yes clearly. It's waaay above my paygrade to hack on though; JBD is one
of those places in the kernel that scare me for doing fundamental
changes ;-(

> 
> > (I also randomly wonder if we, in the write path, dirty the inode
> > twice, once for size once for item, and if we then also reserve two
> > slots in the journal for that.....
> 
> That shouldn't be the case - once we have write access to the buffer
> it remains freely modifiable for the rest of the transaction period.
> I think.

I hope you're right otherwise we'd always hit this; once for the size
change, then block for the mtime. That would thoroughly suck; so much
so that you just must be right.



-- 
Arjan van de Ven 	Intel Open Source Technology Centre
For development, discussion and tips for power savings, 
visit http://www.lesswatts.org
--
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/