linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] ufs: don't use the fair tag sharings

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: <ZF5G5ztMng8Xbd1W@infradead.org>
Date:   Fri, 12 May 2023 07:02:15 -0700
From:   Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To:     Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>
Cc:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
        Ed Tsai <ed.tsai@...iatek.com>, axboe@...nel.dk,
        linux-block@...r.kernel.org, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, martin.petersen@...cle.com,
        stanley.chu@...iatek.com, peter.wang@...iatek.com,
        chun-hung.wu@...iatek.com, alice.chao@...iatek.com,
        powen.kao@...iatek.com, naomi.chu@...iatek.com,
        wsd_upstream@...iatek.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] ufs: don't use the fair tag sharings

On Thu, May 11, 2023 at 08:38:04AM -0700, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> For which devices is the fair sharing algorithm useful? As far as I know the
> legacy block layer did not have an equivalent of the fair sharing algorithm
> and I'm not aware of any complaints about the legacy block layer regarding
> to fairness. This is why I proposed in January to remove the fair sharing
> code entirely. See also https://lore.kernel.org/linux-block/20230103195337.158625-1-bvanassche@acm.org/.

Because the old code did not do tag allocation itself?  Either way I
don't think a "I'll opt out for a random driver" is the proper approach
when you think it's not needed.  Especially not without any data
explaining why just that driver is a special snowflake.