linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 6/6] writeback: limit write_cache_pages integrity scanning to current EOF

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: <20100608065922.GA7869@dastard>
Date:	Tue, 8 Jun 2010 16:59:22 +1000
From:	Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
To:	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
Cc:	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, xfs@....sgi.com,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/6] writeback: limit write_cache_pages integrity
 scanning to current EOF

On Tue, Jun 08, 2010 at 03:38:31PM +1000, Nick Piggin wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 08, 2010 at 10:38:07AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > From: Dave Chinner <dchinner@...hat.com>
> > 
> > sync can currently take a really long time if a concurrent writer is
> > extending a file. The problem is that the dirty pages on the address
> > space grow in the same direction as write_cache_pages scans, so if
> > the writer keeps ahead of writeback, the writeback will not
> > terminate until the writer stops adding dirty pages.
> > 
> > For a data integrity sync, we only need to write the pages dirty at
> > the time we start the writeback, so we can stop scanning once we get
> > to the page that was at the end of the file at the time the scan
> > started.
> > 
> > This will prevent operations like copying a large file preventing
> > sync from completing as it will not write back pages that were
> > dirtied after the sync was started. This does not impact the
> > existing integrity guarantees, as any dirty page (old or new)
> > within the EOF range at the start of the scan will still be
> > captured.
> > 
> > This patch will not prevent sync from blocking on large writes into
> > holes.
> 
> The writes don't have to be into holes to cause this starvation
> problem, do they?

No, they don't.

> > That requires more complex intervention while this patch only
> > addresses the common append-case of this sync holdoff.
> 
> Jan's tagging patch looks pretty good to me and isn't so complex.
> I think we should just take that.

I don't care which one we take as long as it is actually tested by
more than the submitter and we get everything in for 2.6.35...

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@...morbit.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/