linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V4 0/7] loop: cleanup charging io to mem/blkcg

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 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]

Date:   Tue, 10 Aug 2021 11:26:54 +0800
From:   Ming Lei <ming.lei@...hat.com>
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Cc:     Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
        Dan Schatzberg <schatzberg.dan@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V4 0/7] loop: cleanup charging io to mem/blkcg

Hi Chritoph,

On Mon, Aug 09, 2021 at 08:41:59AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> FYI, I am still of the firm opinion that the current cgroup support in
> the loop driver needs to be reverted and be redone cleanly from scratch
> without impacting the normal non-cgroup path at all.

This patchset basically re-writes the original patches much or less, and the
normal non-cgroup path is basically not changed compared with before
87579e9b7d8d ("loop: use worker per cgroup instead of kworker").
Original way is to use kthread_work, now it is switched to queue_work()
for unifying the code, but all commands are just added to one list and run
batching in the single worker context, which is very similar with kthread_worker.

Can you share us what your expectations are in the re-write? Such as:

1) no impact on normal non-cgroup path
2) ...
3) ...

Thanks,
Ming