linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 7/8] wbt: add general throttling mechanism

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: <57218384.4080609@huawei.com>
Date:	Thu, 28 Apr 2016 11:29:08 +0800
From:	xiakaixu <xiakaixu@...wei.com>
To:	Jens Axboe <axboe@...com>
CC:	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
	<linux-block@...r.kernel.org>, <jack@...e.cz>,
	<dchinner@...hat.com>, <sedat.dilek@...il.com>,
	"miaoxie (A)" <miaoxie@...wei.com>, Huxinwei <huxinwei@...wei.com>,
	Bintian <bintian.wang@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/8] wbt: add general throttling mechanism

于 2016/4/27 23:21, Jens Axboe 写道:
> On 04/27/2016 06:06 AM, xiakaixu wrote:
>>> +void __wbt_done(struct rq_wb *rwb)
>>> +{
>>> +    int inflight, limit = rwb->wb_normal;
>>> +
>>> +    /*
>>> +     * If the device does write back caching, drop further down
>>> +     * before we wake people up.
>>> +     */
>>> +    if (rwb->wc && !atomic_read(&rwb->bdi->wb.dirty_sleeping))
>>> +        limit = 0;
>>> +    else
>>> +        limit = rwb->wb_normal;
>>> +
>>> +    /*
>>> +     * Don't wake anyone up if we are above the normal limit. If
>>> +     * throttling got disabled (limit == 0) with waiters, ensure
>>> +     * that we wake them up.
>>> +     */
>>> +    inflight = atomic_dec_return(&rwb->inflight);
>>> +    if (limit && inflight >= limit) {
>>> +        if (!rwb->wb_max)
>>> +            wake_up_all(&rwb->wait);
>>> +        return;
>>> +    }
>>> +
>> Hi Jens,
>>
>> Just a little confused about this. The rwb->wb_max can't be 0 if the variable
>> 'limit' does not equal to 0. So the if (!rwb->wb_max) branch maybe does not
>> make sense.
> 
> You are right, it doesn't make a lot of sense. I think it suffers from code shuffling. How about the attached? The important part is that we wake up waiters, if wbt got disabled while we had tracked IO in flight.
>
Hi Jens,

The modified patch in another mail looks better. Maybe there are still
some places coube be improved. You can find them in that mail.



-- 
Regards
Kaixu Xia