linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 1/4] block: Add iocontext priority to request

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <068e03c4-3558-a6b1-2008-d13bde4958a1@kernel.dk>
Date:   Thu, 13 Oct 2016 14:09:34 -0600
From:   Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
To:     Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        Adam Manzanares <adam.manzanares@...t.com>
Cc:     Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.de>,
        "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
        mchristi@...hat.com, Toshi Kani <toshi.kani@....com>,
        Ming Lei <ming.lei@...onical.com>, sathya.prakash@...adcom.com,
        chaitra.basappa@...adcom.com,
        suganath-prabu.subramani@...adcom.com, linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
        IDE/ATA development list <linux-ide@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        MPT-FusionLinux.pdl@...adcom.com,
        linux-scsi <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>,
        Adam Manzananares <adam.manzanares@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/4] block: Add iocontext priority to request

On 10/13/2016 02:06 PM, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 12:53 PM, Adam Manzanares
> <adam.manzanares@...t.com> wrote:
>> Patch adds an association between iocontext ioprio and the ioprio of a
>> request. This value is set in blk_rq_set_prio which takes the request and
>> the ioc as arguments. If the ioc is valid in blk_rq_set_prio then the
>> iopriority of the request is set as the iopriority of the ioc. In
>> init_request_from_bio a check is made to see if the ioprio of the bio is
>> valid and if so then the request prio comes from the bio.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Adam Manzananares <adam.manzanares@....com>
>> ---
>>  block/blk-core.c       |  4 +++-
>>  include/linux/blkdev.h | 14 ++++++++++++++
>>  2 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/block/blk-core.c b/block/blk-core.c
>> index 14d7c07..361b1b9 100644
>> --- a/block/blk-core.c
>> +++ b/block/blk-core.c
>> @@ -1153,6 +1153,7 @@ static struct request *__get_request(struct request_list *rl, int op,
>>
>>         blk_rq_init(q, rq);
>>         blk_rq_set_rl(rq, rl);
>> +       blk_rq_set_prio(rq, ioc);
>>         req_set_op_attrs(rq, op, op_flags | REQ_ALLOCED);
>>
>>         /* init elvpriv */
>> @@ -1656,7 +1657,8 @@ void init_request_from_bio(struct request *req, struct bio *bio)
>>
>>         req->errors = 0;
>>         req->__sector = bio->bi_iter.bi_sector;
>> -       req->ioprio = bio_prio(bio);
>> +       if (ioprio_valid(bio_prio(bio)))
>> +               req->ioprio = bio_prio(bio);
>
> Should we use ioprio_best() here?  If req->ioprio and bio_prio()
> disagree one side has explicitly asked for a higher priority.

It's a good question - but if priority has been set in the bio, it makes
sense that that would take priority over the general setting for the
task/io context. So I think the patch is correct as-is.

Adam, you'll want to rewrite the commit message though. A good commit
message should explain WHY the change is made, not detail the code
implementation of it.

-- 
Jens Axboe