linux-kernel - Re: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] elevator: restore old io scheduler on failure in elevator

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]

Message-ID: <7724857b.55d9.1849f5eb423.Coremail.nickyc975@zju.edu.cn>
Date:   Tue, 22 Nov 2022 20:44:54 +0800 (GMT+08:00)
From:   "Jinlong Chen" <nickyc975@....edu.cn>
To:     "Christoph Hellwig" <hch@....de>
Cc:     axboe@...nel.dk, linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] elevator: restore old io scheduler on
 failure in elevator_switch

> On Tue, Nov 22, 2022 at 08:14:30PM +0800, Jinlong Chen wrote:
> > Mostly failures specific to the intended io scheduler, like consuming more
> > resources than the old one that the system can not afford. But sure it's
> > rare, so do you think I should just correct the outdated document?
> 
> I'd be tempted to just documented the behavior, because I think the
> chances are high that if switching to one schedule will fail that
> switching back to the old one will fail as well.  I've done a quick
> audit of all three schedulers, and unless I missed something there
> are no other failure cases except for running out of memory.
> 
> Maybe a printk to document that switching the scheduler failed are
> we aren't using any scheduler now might be useful, though.

Ok, then I'll send two patches with the document updated and the printk added.

Thanks!
Jinlong Chen