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: <16d4065e-c0d1-7a85-3d9a-242bfd92923e@kernel.dk>
Date:   Fri, 7 Dec 2018 07:40:45 -0700
From:   Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
To:     Paolo Valente <paolo.valente@...aro.org>
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

On 12/7/18 3:01 AM, Paolo Valente wrote:
> 
> 
>> 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?

I think so, I'll do that.

-- 
Jens Axboe