linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] writeback: Don't wait for completion in writeback_inodes_sb

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: <20110719155431.GA5631@infradead.org>
Date:	Tue, 19 Jul 2011 11:54:31 -0400
From:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To:	Curt Wohlgemuth <curtw@...gle.com>
Cc:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	fengguang.wu@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] writeback: Don't wait for completion in
 writeback_inodes_sb_nr

On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 02:30:17PM -0700, Curt Wohlgemuth wrote:
> I can definitely see how tagging with the start of sync would be
> helpful; also how going from three to two passes seems like a
> no-brainer.
> 
> But what's the real point of doing even two passes -- one SYNC_NONE
> followed by one SYNC_ALL?  Is it try to get through as many inodes as
> possible before we potentially lock up by waiting on an inode on an
> unavailable device?

Yes.  Or at least that's the idea, I'd love to see an actual
prove for it.

--
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/