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  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:   Wed, 25 Jan 2017 09:46:29 +0100
From:   Paolo Valente <>
To:     Jens Axboe <>
Cc:     Jens Axboe <>,,
        Linux-Kernal <>,
        Omar Sandoval <>,
        Linus Walleij <>,
        Ulf Hansson <>,
        Mark Brown <>
Subject: Re: [PATCHSET v4] blk-mq-scheduling framework

> Il giorno 23 gen 2017, alle ore 18:42, Jens Axboe <> ha scritto:
> On 01/23/2017 10:04 AM, Paolo Valente wrote:
>>> Il giorno 18 gen 2017, alle ore 17:21, Jens Axboe <> ha scritto:
>>> On 01/18/2017 08:14 AM, Paolo Valente wrote:
>>>> according to the function blk_mq_sched_put_request, the
>>>> mq.completed_request hook seems to always be invoked (if set) for a
>>>> request for which the mq.put_rq_priv is invoked (if set).
>>> Correct, any request that came out of blk_mq_sched_get_request()
>>> will always have completed called on it, regardless of whether it
>>> had IO started on it or not.
>> It seems that some request, after being dispatched, happens to have no
>> mq.put_rq_priv invoked on it now or then.  Is it expected?  If it is,
>> could you point me to the path through which the end of the life of
>> such a request is handled?
> I'm guessing that's a flush request. I added RQF_QUEUED to check for
> that, if RQF_QUEUED is set, you know it has come from your get_request
> handler.

Exactly, the completion-without-put_rq_priv pattern seems to occur
only for requests coming from the flusher, precisely because they have
the flag RQF_ELVPRIV unset.  Just to understand: why is this flag
unset for these requests, if they do have private elevator (bfq)
data attached?  What am I misunderstanding?

Just to be certain: this should be the only case where the
completed_request hook is invoked while the put_rq_priv is not, right?


> I'm assuming that is it, let me know.
> -- 
> Jens Axboe

Powered by blists - more mailing lists