linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] writeback: Per-block device bdi->dirty_writeback_interval and bdi->dirty_expire

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: <20110819142705.GB15401@localhost>
Date:	Fri, 19 Aug 2011 22:27:05 +0800
From:	Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
To:	Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@...il.com>
Cc:	Kautuk Consul <consul.kautuk@...il.com>,
	Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
	"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
	Greg Thelen <gthelen@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] writeback: Per-block device
 bdi->dirty_writeback_interval and bdi->dirty_expire_interval.

On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 07:55:43PM +0800, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-08-18 at 21:13 +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> > Thinking twice about it, I find that the different requirements for
> > interval flash/external microSD can also be solved by this scheme.
> > 
> > Introduce a per-bdi dirty_background_time (and optionally dirty_time)
> > as the counterpart of (and works in parallel to) global dirty[_background]_ratio,
> > however with unit "milliseconds worth of data".
> > 
> > The per-bdi dirty_background_time will be set low for external microSD
> > and high for internal flash. Then you get timely writeouts for microSD
> > and reasonably delayed writes for internal flash (controllable by the
> > global dirty_expire_centisecs).
> > 
> > The dirty_background_time will actually work more reliable than
> > dirty_expire_centisecs because it will checked immediately after the
> > application dirties more pages. And the dirty_time could provide
> > strong data integrity guarantee -- much stronger than
> > dirty_expire_centisecs -- if used.
> > 
> > Does that sound reasonable?
> 
> Yes, this would probably work. But note, we do not have this problem
> anymore, I was just talking about the past experience, so I cannot
> validate any possible patch.

OK, thanks for the information. What do you mean by "not have this
problem any more"? Did you worked around it in other ways, such as
sync mount (which seems rather inefficient though)?

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/