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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 23 Oct 2008 12:41:03 +0400
From:	Dmitri Monakhov <dmonakhov@...nvz.org>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add block device speciffic splice write method

Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> writes:

> 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().
I think so too, but I've done it in this way because all other writers
does it. 
>
>
> 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/