linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/6] writeback: wb_start_writeback() should use WB_SYNC_ALL for WB_REASON

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, 22 Mar 2016 15:51:01 -0600
From:	Jens Axboe <axboe@...com>
To:	Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
CC:	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
	<linux-block@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/6] writeback: wb_start_writeback() should use
 WB_SYNC_ALL for WB_REASON_SYNC

On 03/22/2016 03:40 PM, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 03/22/2016 03:34 PM, Dave Chinner wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 11:55:16AM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>> If you call sync, the initial call to wakeup_flusher_threads() ends up
>>> calling wb_start_writeback() with reason=WB_REASON_SYNC, but
>>> wb_start_writeback() always uses WB_SYNC_NONE as the writeback mode.
>>> Ensure that we use WB_SYNC_ALL for a sync operation.
>>
>> This seems wrong to me. We want background write to happen as
>> quickly as possible and /not block/ when we first kick sync.
>
> It's not going to block. wakeup_flusher_threads() async queues writeback
> work through wb_start_writeback().

For block here, you mean the async work ending up doing 
wait_on_page_writeback() because we're doing WB_SYNC_ALL instead of 
WB_SYNC_NONE?

And if so:

>> The latter blocking passes of sync use WB_SYNC_ALL to ensure that we
>> block waiting for all remaining IO to be issued and waited on, but
>> the background writeback doesn't need to do this.

why not have it do that?

-- 
Jens Axboe