| 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
| ||
|
Message-Id: <20140313143456.157404fd7f208638ca70e317@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2014 14:34:56 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Cc: Roman Peniaev <r.peniaev@...il.com>,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] fs/mpage.c: forgotten WRITE_SYNC in case of data
integrity write
On Thu, 13 Mar 2014 21:01:19 +0100 Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Wed 12-03-14 23:29:04, Roman Peniaev wrote:
> > could you please explain the real purpose of WAIT_SYNC?
> > In case of wbc->sync_mode == WB_SYNC_ALL.
> > Because my current understanding is if writeback control has
> > WB_SYNC_ALL everything
> > should be submitted with WAIT_SYNC.
> So AFAIK the idea is that REQ_SYNC flag should indicate the IO is
> synchronous - i.e., someone is waiting for it to complete. This is opposed
> to asynchronous writeback done by flusher threads where noone waits for
> particular write to complete. Subsequently, IO scheduler is expected (but
> not required to - only CFQ honors REQ_SYNC AFAIK) to treat sync requests
> with higher priority than async onces.
>
> When to set REQ_SYNC is not an obvious question. If we set it for too much
> IO, it has no effect. If we don't set it for some IO we risk that someone
> waiting for that IO to complete will be starved by others setting REQ_SYNC.
>
> So all in all I think that using WRITE_SYNC iff we are doing WB_SYNC_ALL
> writeback is a reasonable choice.
I added this to the changelog:
: akpm: afaict this change will cause the data integrity write bios to be
: placed onto the second queue in cfq_io_cq.cfqq[], which presumably results
: in special treatment. The documentation for REQ_SYNC is horrid.
Which is pretty pathetic.
Jens isn't talking to us. Tejun, are you able explain REQ_SYNC?
I just don't know about this patch. It will presumably have some
effect on data-integrity writes. But is that a good effect or a bad
one? Will it result in a sys_sync() starving out other IO for ages in
an undesirable fashion? It might well do! Will it prioritize those
writes, resulting in overall less efficient IO patterns? It might well
do!
I don't see how we can proceed without understanding the tradeoffs and
deciding that the overall effect is a desirable one.
From: Roman Pen <r.peniaev@...il.com>
Subject: fs/mpage.c: forgotten WRITE_SYNC in case of data integrity write
In case of wbc->sync_mode == WB_SYNC_ALL we need to do data integrity
write, thus mark request as WRITE_SYNC.
akpm: afaict this change will cause the data integrity write bios to be
placed onto the second queue in cfq_io_cq.cfqq[], which presumably results
in special treatment. The documentation for REQ_SYNC is horrid.
Signed-off-by: Roman Pen <r.peniaev@...il.com>
Reviewed-by: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
---
fs/mpage.c | 23 +++++++++++++++--------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
diff -puN fs/mpage.c~fs-mpagec-forgotten-write_sync-in-case-of-data-integrity-write fs/mpage.c
--- a/fs/mpage.c~fs-mpagec-forgotten-write_sync-in-case-of-data-integrity-write
+++ a/fs/mpage.c
@@ -462,6 +462,7 @@ static int __mpage_writepage(struct page
struct buffer_head map_bh;
loff_t i_size = i_size_read(inode);
int ret = 0;
+ int wr = (wbc->sync_mode == WB_SYNC_ALL ? WRITE_SYNC : WRITE);
if (page_has_buffers(page)) {
struct buffer_head *head = page_buffers(page);
@@ -570,7 +571,7 @@ page_is_mapped:
* This page will go to BIO. Do we need to send this BIO off first?
*/
if (bio && mpd->last_block_in_bio != blocks[0] - 1)
- bio = mpage_bio_submit(WRITE, bio);
+ bio = mpage_bio_submit(wr, bio);
alloc_new:
if (bio == NULL) {
@@ -587,7 +588,7 @@ alloc_new:
*/
length = first_unmapped << blkbits;
if (bio_add_page(bio, page, length, 0) < length) {
- bio = mpage_bio_submit(WRITE, bio);
+ bio = mpage_bio_submit(wr, bio);
goto alloc_new;
}
@@ -620,7 +621,7 @@ alloc_new:
set_page_writeback(page);
unlock_page(page);
if (boundary || (first_unmapped != blocks_per_page)) {
- bio = mpage_bio_submit(WRITE, bio);
+ bio = mpage_bio_submit(wr, bio);
if (boundary_block) {
write_boundary_block(boundary_bdev,
boundary_block, 1 << blkbits);
@@ -632,7 +633,7 @@ alloc_new:
confused:
if (bio)
- bio = mpage_bio_submit(WRITE, bio);
+ bio = mpage_bio_submit(wr, bio);
if (mpd->use_writepage) {
ret = mapping->a_ops->writepage(page, wbc);
@@ -688,8 +689,11 @@ mpage_writepages(struct address_space *m
};
ret = write_cache_pages(mapping, wbc, __mpage_writepage, &mpd);
- if (mpd.bio)
- mpage_bio_submit(WRITE, mpd.bio);
+ if (mpd.bio) {
+ int wr = (wbc->sync_mode == WB_SYNC_ALL ?
+ WRITE_SYNC : WRITE);
+ mpage_bio_submit(wr, mpd.bio);
+ }
}
blk_finish_plug(&plug);
return ret;
@@ -706,8 +710,11 @@ int mpage_writepage(struct page *page, g
.use_writepage = 0,
};
int ret = __mpage_writepage(page, wbc, &mpd);
- if (mpd.bio)
- mpage_bio_submit(WRITE, mpd.bio);
+ if (mpd.bio) {
+ int wr = (wbc->sync_mode == WB_SYNC_ALL ?
+ WRITE_SYNC : WRITE);
+ mpage_bio_submit(wr, mpd.bio);
+ }
return ret;
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL(mpage_writepage);
_
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists