linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFT 0/3] blk-mq: Optimise blk_mq_queue_tag_busy

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: <e6069080-61e7-4345-8ff3-a26756a1c76c@huawei.com>
Date:   Mon, 6 Dec 2021 09:57:39 +0000
From:   John Garry <john.garry@...wei.com>
To:     Kashyap Desai <kashyap.desai@...adcom.com>, <axboe@...nel.dk>
CC:     <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        <ming.lei@...hat.com>, <hare@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFT 0/3] blk-mq: Optimise blk_mq_queue_tag_busy_iter() for
 shared tags

On 26/11/2021 11:51, John Garry wrote:
>> This patch set improves above call trace even after disk_util=0 is set.
> ok, fine. Thanks for testing.
> 
> So I guess that this is a regression, and you would want this series for 
> v5.16, right? My changes were made with v5.17 in mind.
> 
> I am not sure how Jens feels about it, since the changes are 
> significant. It would be a lot easier to argue for v5.16 if we got to 
> this point earlier in the cycle...
> 

note: I will now resend for 5.17 and add your tested-by, please let me 
know if unhappy about that.

> Anyway, it would be good to have full review first, so please help with 
> that.
> 
> @Ming, can you please give feedback on 3/3 here?

Thanks and also to Hannes for the reviews.

john