linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/5] Take 3 at async RPCs and no longer looping forever on signals

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: <Y+q7vvc2Sek8d7wG@codewreck.org>
Date:   Tue, 14 Feb 2023 07:37:50 +0900
From:   Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@...ewreck.org>
To:     Christian Schoenebeck <linux_oss@...debyte.com>
Cc:     v9fs-developer@...ts.sourceforge.net,
        Eric Van Hensbergen <ericvh@...il.com>,
        Latchesar Ionkov <lucho@...kov.net>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
        Pengfei Xu <pengfei.xu@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] Take 3 at async RPCs and no longer looping forever
 on signals

Christian Schoenebeck wrote on Mon, Feb 13, 2023 at 07:45:34PM +0100:
> On Monday, February 13, 2023 7:26:54 PM CET Christian Schoenebeck wrote:
> > On Saturday, February 11, 2023 8:50:18 AM CET Dominique Martinet wrote:
> > > I've been working on async RPCs for a while and never had time to debug
> > > the last issues this had, but by limiting the async clunks to failures
> > > the impact is drastically smaller and I've not been able to reproduce
> > > any more bug so far.
> > > 
> > > This will require some more testing and I'm tempted to say this is not
> > > worth rushing this into the merge window next week-ish; the new problem
> > > Jens reported with task_work isn't really new and I'd rather get this
> > > right than rush new bugs in given the sour experience I've had with this
> > > patch series... Hopefully it'll get in this time.
> > > With that in mind I plan to take the patches in to my -next branch after
> > > the merge window, so this has time to get reviewed first.
> > > 
> > > I'd like to measure impact on performance as well, but really spent way
> > > more time on this than I already have, so that'll have to wait a bit.
> > 
> > I have not observed performance degradation, nor any (new) errors. So for
> > this entire series:
> > 
> > Tested-by: Christian Schoenebeck <linux_oss@...debyte.com>
> 
> Sorry, strike that. :-/

Ugh! thanks for the test, I'm not making much sense of the trace (folio
wait bit means some background write isn't happening when flushing
before the setattr?) but I'll try to reproduce and have a look
today/tomorrow

-- 
Dominique