linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 6/7] writeback: separate starting of sync vs opportunistic writeback

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: <20090915131707.GM23126@kernel.dk>
Date:	Tue, 15 Sep 2009 15:17:08 +0200
From:	Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
To:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc:	Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, chris.mason@...cle.com,
	tytso@....edu, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	trond.myklebust@....uio.no
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/7] writeback: separate starting of sync vs
	opportunistic writeback

On Tue, Sep 15 2009, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 03:04:19PM +0200, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > 
> > >   Let's have a look at the flags in wbc:
> > >   nonblocking - Currently only set by direct callers of ->writepage() BUT
> > >                 originally wb_kupdate() and background_writeout() also
> > >                 set this flag. Since filesystems and write_cache_pages()
> > > 		use the flag we should set it for equivalent writeouts as
> > >                 well. This should be fixed...
> > 
> > Since this is all handled by the dedicated thread now, dropping the
> > nonblocking bit was on purpose. What would the point be, except for
> > stopping pdflush being blocked on request allocation?
> 
> Note that this flag just caused utter mess traditionally.  btrfs decided
> to ignore it completely and ext4 partially.  Removing this check in
> XFS increases large bufferd write loads massively.
> 
> Just half-removing it is a bad idea, though - if you don't set it
> anymore please kill it entirely.

I haven't touched it, except removing it from the caller where it
doesn't make sense anymore. If you think we should kill it completely,
then lets look at that in a few days. I've got more than enough stuff
queued up for inclusion now that I need to test and verify before doing
even more cleanups/changes :-)

-- 
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/