linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/2] Add a super operation for writeback

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:	Tue, 3 Jun 2014 07:14:44 -0700
From:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To:	Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Cc:	Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
	Daniel Phillips <daniel@...nq.net>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@...l.parknet.co.jp>,
	Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/2] Add a super operation for writeback

On Tue, Jun 03, 2014 at 04:05:31PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> So we currently flush inodes in first dirtied first written back order when
> superblock is not specified in writeback work. That completely ignores the
> fact to which superblock inode belongs but I don't see per-sb fairness to
> actually make any sense when
> 1) flushing old data (to keep promise set in dirty_expire_centisecs)
> 2) flushing data to reduce number of dirty pages
> And these are really the only two cases where we don't do per-sb flushing.
> 
> Now when filesystems want to do something more clever (and I can see
> reasons for that e.g. when journalling metadata, even more so when
> journalling data) I agree we need to somehow implement the above two types
> of writeback using per-sb flushing. Type 1) is actually pretty easy - just
> tell each sb to writeback dirty data upto time T. Type 2) is more difficult
> because that is more openended task - it seems similar to what shrinkers do
> but that would require us to track per sb amount of dirty pages / inodes
> and I'm not sure we want to add even more page counting statistics...
> Especially since often bdi == fs. Thoughts?

Honestly I think doing per-bdi writeback has been a major mistake.  As
you said it only even matters when we have filesystems on multiple
partitions on a single device, and even then only in a simple setup,
as soon as we use LVM or btrfs this sort of sharing stops to happen
anyway.  I don't even see much of a benefit except that we prevent
two flushing daemons to congest a single device for that special case
of multiple filesystems on partitions of the same device, and that could
be solved in other ways.

The major benefit of the per-bdi writeback was that for the usual case
of one filesystem per device we get exactly one flusher thread per
filesystems intead of multiple competing ones, but per-sb writeback
would solve that just as fine.

--
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/