linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH BUGFIX] block, bfq: deschedule empty bfq

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 14 Nov 2019 10:23:24 +0100
From:   Paolo Valente <paolo.valente@...aro.org>
To:     Oleksandr Natalenko <oleksandr@...alenko.name>
Cc:     Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
        linux-block <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>, linus.walleij@...aro.org,
        bfq-iosched@...glegroups.com, Chris Evich <cevich@...hat.com>,
        Patrick Dung <patdung100@...il.com>,
        Thorsten Schubert <tschubert@...h.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH BUGFIX] block, bfq: deschedule empty bfq_queues not
 referred by any process



> Il giorno 14 nov 2019, alle ore 09:53, Oleksandr Natalenko <oleksandr@...alenko.name> ha scritto:
> 
> Hi.
> 
> On 13.11.2019 18:42, Paolo Valente wrote:
>>> Il giorno 13 nov 2019, alle ore 16:01, Oleksandr Natalenko <oleksandr@...alenko.name> ha scritto:
>> Ok, you may have given me enough information, thank you very much.
>> Could you please apply the attached (compressed) patch on top of my
>> offending patch?  For review purposes, here is the simple change:
>> --- a/block/bfq-iosched.c
>> +++ b/block/bfq-iosched.c
>> @@ -2728,7 +2728,8 @@ void bfq_release_process_ref(struct bfq_data
>> *bfqd, struct bfq_queue *bfqq)
>>         * freed when dequeued from service. But this is assumed to
>>         * never happen.
>>         */
>> -       if (bfq_bfqq_busy(bfqq) && RB_EMPTY_ROOT(&bfqq->sort_list))
>> +       if (bfq_bfqq_busy(bfqq) && RB_EMPTY_ROOT(&bfqq->sort_list) &&
>> +           bfqq != bfqd->in_service_queue)
>>                bfq_del_bfqq_busy(bfqd, bfqq, false);
>>        bfq_put_queue(bfqq);
> 
> The issue is not reproducible for me after applying this patch.
> 

Great! I'm sending a V2 with your Tested-by.

Thank you,
Paolo

> Thank you.
> 
> -- 
>  Oleksandr Natalenko (post-factum)