linux-kernel - Re: Device loses barrier support (was: Fixed patch for simple barriers.)

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: <20081205122930.GB6703@one.firstfloor.org>
Date:	Fri, 5 Dec 2008 13:29:30 +0100
From:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@...hat.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, xfs@....sgi.com,
	Alasdair G Kergon <agk@...hat.com>,
	Andi Kleen <andi-suse@...stfloor.org>,
	Milan Broz <mbroz@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: Device loses barrier support (was: Fixed patch for simple barriers.)

> Not when the fundamental design of the code is broken and trashes
> performance. 

Sorry but that's just not correct. There's nothing in late failing
barriers that "trashes performance". The file system writers have
to be careful to handle it, but at least the current ones all do.
And also if someone writes a hypothetical fully asynchronously driven 
barrier based IO transaction system it would be still possible to handle 
the late failing barrier without too many complications.

Also late failing barriers is pretty much the only sane way to implement
barriers in software remapping schemes like DM and MD.

-Andi

-- 
ak@...ux.intel.com
--
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/