linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] Core block IO bits for 2.6.39

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: <4D8E1A1A.8010300@fusionio.com>
Date:	Sat, 26 Mar 2011 17:53:46 +0100
From:	Jens Axboe <jaxboe@...ionio.com>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
CC:	Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>,
	Linux/m68k <linux-m68k@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] Core block IO bits for 2.6.39

On 2011-03-26 17:48, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 11:29 PM, Jens Axboe <jaxboe@...ionio.com> wrote:
>> +
>> +       /* Use 3ms as that was the old plug delay */
>> +       blk_delay_queue(q, msecs_to_jiffies(3));
> 
> That's bogus. blk_delay_queue() already takes msecs, not jiffies.

You are right, braino.

> Also, do we really need to delay every unplug like this? It seems sad.
> A 3ms delay is a long time these days - admittedly most people
> hopefully use ATA these days if they have an SSD or something, but
> still..

Depends on whether you want the 'call me back, I ran into busy this
time' or the 'recall me immediately'.

I'll take a look at the IDE case tonight and submit a real fix.

-- 
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/