linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/5] writeback: introduce wbc.for

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, 30 Jul 2010 13:10:05 +0800
From:	Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
To:	Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
	Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>,
	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
	Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
	Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>, Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] writeback: introduce wbc.for_sync to cover the two
 sync stages

On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 11:04:13PM +0800, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Thu 29-07-10 19:51:43, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> > The sync() is performed in two stages: the WB_SYNC_NONE sync and
> > the WB_SYNC_ALL sync. It is necessary to tag both stages with
> > wbc.for_sync, so as to prevent either of them being livelocked.
> > 
> > The basic livelock scheme will be based on the sync_after timestamp.
> > Inodes dirtied after that won't be queued for IO. The timestamp could be
> > recorded as early as the sync() time, this patch lazily sets it in
> > writeback_inodes_sb()/sync_inodes_sb(). This will stop livelock, but
> > may do more work than necessary.
> > 
> > Note that writeback_inodes_sb() is called by not only sync(), they
> > are treated the same because the other callers need the same livelock
> > prevention.

>   OK, but the patch does nothing, doesn't it? I'd prefer if the fields
> you introduce were actually used in this patch.

OK, I'll merge it with the third patch.

Thanks,
Fengguang
--
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/