linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Add block device speciffic splice write method

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: <20081022223928.a6ce476f.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Wed, 22 Oct 2008 22:39:28 -0700
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
Cc:	Dmitri Monakhov <dmonakhov@...nvz.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add block device speciffic splice write method

On Mon, 20 Oct 2008 20:11:56 +0200 Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com> wrote:

> +ssize_t generic_file_splice_write_file_nolock(struct pipe_inode_info *pipe,
> +					      struct file *out, loff_t *ppos,
> +					      size_t len, unsigned int flags)
> +{
> +	struct address_space *mapping = out->f_mapping;
> +	struct inode *inode = mapping->host;
> +	struct splice_desc sd = {
> +		.total_len = len,
> +		.flags = flags,
> +		.pos = *ppos,
> +		.u.file = out,
> +	};
> +	ssize_t ret;
> +
> +	mutex_lock(&pipe->inode->i_mutex);
> +	ret = __splice_from_pipe(pipe, &sd, pipe_to_file);
> +	mutex_unlock(&pipe->inode->i_mutex);
> +
> +	if (ret > 0) {
> +		unsigned long nr_pages;
> +
> +		*ppos += ret;
> +		nr_pages = (ret + PAGE_CACHE_SIZE - 1) >> PAGE_CACHE_SHIFT;
> +
> +		if (unlikely((out->f_flags & O_SYNC) || IS_SYNC(inode))) {
> +			int er;
> +
> +			er = sync_page_range_nolock(inode, mapping, *ppos, ret);
> +			if (er)
> +				ret = er;
> +		}
> +		balance_dirty_pages_ratelimited_nr(mapping, nr_pages);
> +	}
> +
> +	return ret;
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(generic_file_splice_write_file_nolock);

I don't think the balance_dirty_pages() is needed if we just did the
sync_page_range().


But really it'd be better if the throttling happened down in
pipe_to_file(), on a per-page basis.  As it stands we can dirty an
arbitrary number of pagecache pages without throttling.  I think?

--
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/