linux-kernel - [RFC][PATCH 13/16] writeback: restructure bdi forker loop a little

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]

Date:	Fri, 16 Jul 2010 15:45:09 +0300
From:	Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@...il.com>
To:	Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
Cc:	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [RFC][PATCH 13/16] writeback: restructure bdi forker loop a little

From: Artem Bityutskiy <Artem.Bityutskiy@...ia.com>

This patch re-structures the loop which walks bdi a little. This
is really just a micro-step towards the coming change where the
forker thread will kill the bdi threads. Just a tiny preparation
which should simplify reviewing and make it easier to see what
I changed and catch mistakes by reviewing.

To put it differently, the final patch which moves the inactive bdi
threads exiting logic will be smaller if I do this little preparation.
Smaller patches are easier to review.

This patch also adds the 'bdi_cap_flush_forker(bdi)' condition to
the loop. The reason for this is that the forker thread can start
_before_ the BID_pending flag is set (see 'bdi_register()'), so
the WARN() statement will fire for the default bdi. I observed
this warning the system boots up.

This patch also amends comments a little.

Signed-off-by: Artem Bityutskiy <Artem.Bityutskiy@...ia.com>
---
 mm/backing-dev.c |   23 +++++++++++------------
 1 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/mm/backing-dev.c b/mm/backing-dev.c
index 0123d6f..18d7c22 100644
--- a/mm/backing-dev.c
+++ b/mm/backing-dev.c
@@ -340,24 +340,23 @@ static int bdi_forker_thread(void *ptr)
 		spin_lock_bh(&bdi_lock);
 		set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);

-		/*
-		 * Check if any existing bdi's have dirty data without
-		 * a thread registered. If so, set that up.
-		 */
 		list_for_each_entry_safe(bdi, tmp, &bdi_list, bdi_list) {
-			if (!bdi_cap_writeback_dirty(bdi))
-				continue;
-			if (bdi->wb.task)
-				continue;
-			if (!bdi_has_dirty_io(bdi))
+			if (!bdi_cap_writeback_dirty(bdi) ||
+			     bdi_cap_flush_forker(bdi))
 				continue;

 			WARN(!test_bit(BDI_registered, &bdi->state),
 			     "bdi %p/%s is not registered!\n", bdi, bdi->name);

-			list_del_rcu(&bdi->bdi_list);
-			fork = true;
-			break;
+			/*
+			 * If the bdi has work to do, but the thread does not
+			 * exist - create it.
+			 */
+			if (!bdi->wb.task && bdi_has_dirty_io(bdi)) {
+				list_del_rcu(&bdi->bdi_list);
+				fork = true;
+				break;
+			}
 		}
 		spin_unlock_bh(&bdi_lock);

-- 
1.7.1.1

--
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/