linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH BUGFIX 0/2] bfq: fix unbalanced decrements causing loss of throughput

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: <8753C347-2BFD-40D4-A97E-DA955BC0207C@linaro.org>
Date:   Fri, 7 Dec 2018 11:01:03 +0100
From:   Paolo Valente <paolo.valente@...aro.org>
To:     Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
Cc:     linux-block <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>, bfq-iosched@...glegroups.com,
        oleksandr@...alenko.name, federico@...ler.it
Subject: Re: [PATCH BUGFIX 0/2] bfq: fix unbalanced decrements causing loss of
 throughput



> Il giorno 7 dic 2018, alle ore 03:23, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk> ha scritto:
> 
> On 12/6/18 11:18 AM, Paolo Valente wrote:
>> Hi Jens,
>> the first patch in this series fixes an error in the decrementing of
>> the counter of the number of groups with pending I/O. This wrong
>> decrement caused loss of throughput or, less likely, of control on
>> I/O. The second patch is a fix of some wrong comments, which somehow
>> contributed to making the above bug more difficult to find.
> 
> Are you fine with this going into 4.21? I can't quite tell what your
> intent is. The first patch has a Fixes for something

yep, that fixes a serious error.

> that went into
> this series, but then patch 2 is a comment update that would not
> normally be something to be applied at this stage.
> 

and yes, only comments changed by the second one

May it make sense to apply them in two steps, one in the 4.20 and the other one in the 4.21?

Thanks,
Paolo

> -- 
> Jens Axboe
>