[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20171219130454.GJ2277@quack2.suse.cz>
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 14:04:54 +0100
From: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
cgroups@...r.kernel.org, xuejiufei <xuejiufei@...il.com>,
kernel-team@...com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] writeback: synchronize sync(2) against cgroup
writeback membership switches
On Wed 13-12-17 07:39:30, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 12:00:04PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
> > OK, but this effectively prevents writeback from sync_inodes_sb() to ever
> > make inode switch wbs. Cannot that be abused in some way like making sure
> > writeback of our memcg is "invisible" by forcing it out using sync(2)? It
> > just looks a bit dangerous to me...
>
> That's true. There are a couple mitigating factors tho.
>
> * While it can delay switching during sync(2), it'll all still be
> recorded and the switch will happen soon if needed.
>
> * sync(2) is hugely disruptive with or without this and can easily be
> used to DOS the whole system. People are working on restricting the
> blast radius of sync(2) to mitigate this problem, which most likely
> make this a non-problem too.
>
> If you can think of a better solution, I'm all ears.
After some thinking about this I don't have a better solution. So you can
add:
Acked-by: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Honza
--
Jan Kara <jack@...e.com>
SUSE Labs, CR
Powered by blists - more mailing lists