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: <20200917080455.GY26262@infradead.org>
Date:   Thu, 17 Sep 2020 09:04:55 +0100
From:   Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To:     Brian Foster <bfoster@...hat.com>
Cc:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
        "Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@...cle.com>,
        Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
        Ritesh Harjani <riteshh@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Anju T Sudhakar <anju@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, willy@...radead.org,
        minlei@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] iomap: Fix the write_count in iomap_add_to_ioend().

On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 09:07:14AM -0400, Brian Foster wrote:
> Dave described the main purpose earlier in this thread [1]. The initial
> motivation is that we've had downstream reports of soft lockup problems
> in writeback bio completion down in the bio -> bvec loop of
> iomap_finish_ioend() that has to finish writeback on each individual
> page of insanely large bios and/or chains. We've also had an upstream
> reports of a similar problem on linux-xfs [2].
> 
> The magic number itself was just pulled out of a hat. I picked it
> because it seemed conservative enough to still allow large contiguous
> bios (1GB w/ 4k pages) while hopefully preventing I/O completion
> problems, but was hoping for some feedback on that bit if the general
> approach was acceptable. I was also waiting for some feedback on either
> of the two users who reported the problem but I don't think I've heard
> back on that yet...

I think the saner answer is to always run large completions in the
workqueue, and add a bunch of cond_resched() calls, rather than
arbitrarily breaking up the I/O size.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ