linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/7] writeback: avoid touching dirtied

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:	Sat, 22 Oct 2011 11:11:35 +0800
From:	Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
To:	Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Cc:	"linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] writeback: avoid touching dirtied_when on blocked
 inodes

> > btw, with the I_SYNC case converted, it's actually no longer necessary
> > to keep a standalone b_more_io_wait. It should still be better to keep
> > the list and the above error check for catching possible errors and
> > the flexibility of adding policies like "don't retry possible blocked
> > inodes in N seconds as long as there are other inodes to work with".
> > 
> > The below diff only intends to show the _possibility_ to remove
> > b_more_io_wait:
>   Good observation. So should we introduce b_more_io_wait in the end? We
> could always introduce it when the need for some more complicated policy
> comes...
> 

I have no problem removing it if you liked it more. Anyway, let me
test the idea out first (just kicked off the tests).

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/