linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/11] Per-bdi writeback flusher threads v9

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: <20090603114241.GN11363@kernel.dk>
Date:	Wed, 3 Jun 2009 13:42:42 +0200
From:	Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
To:	Artem Bityutskiy <Artem.Bityutskiy@...ia.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	tytso@....edu, chris.mason@...cle.com, david@...morbit.com,
	hch@...radead.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, jack@...e.cz,
	yanmin_zhang@...ux.intel.com, richard@....demon.co.uk,
	damien.wyart@...e.fr
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/11] Per-bdi writeback flusher threads v9

On Wed, Jun 03 2009, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
> Jens Axboe wrote:
>> Here's the 9th version of the writeback patches. Changes since v8:
>>
>> - Fix a bdi_work on-stack allocation hang. I hope this fixes Ted's
>>   issue.
>> - Get rid of the explicit wait queues, we can just use wake_up_process()
>>   since it's just for that one task.
>> - Add separate "sync_supers" thread that makes sure that the dirty
>>   super blocks get written. We cannot safely do this from bdi_forker_task(),
>>   as that risks deadlocking on ->s_umount. Artem, I implemented this
>>   by doing the wake ups from a timer so that it would be easier for you
>>   to just deactivate the timer when there are no super blocks.
>
> I wonder if you would consider to work on top of the latest VFS changes:
>
> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/viro/vfs-2.6.git for-next
>
> For me the problem is that my original patches were created against
> the VFS tree, and they do not apply nicely to your tree. So what I've
> tried to do - I applied your patches on top of the VFS tree. But they
> did not apply cleanly either. I'm currently working on merging them,
> but I thought it is better to ask if you already did this.

Al, what's the time frame for submitting these vfs changes? I'm assuming
2.6.31 since it's called for-next. If that is the case, then it would be
for the best if I rebase on top of those.

So, to answer your other ping mail as well, my writeback changes will
then be based on top off the vfs tree and then your 0-17 patches. Then
we should have a joint base to work from.

-- 
Jens Axboe

--
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/