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: <04a4d0db-2f2d-e2fc-5458-4ddf852ffc8a@acm.org>
Date:   Tue, 13 Jun 2023 07:07:27 -0700
From:   Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>
To:     Yu Kuai <yukuai1@...weicloud.com>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc:     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, "yukuai (C)" <yukuai3@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] ufs: don't use the fair tag sharings

On 5/18/23 00:55, Yu Kuai wrote:
> 在 2023/05/18 10:23, Bart Van Assche 写道:
>> On 5/17/23 18:49, Yu Kuai wrote:
>>> Currently, fair share from hctx_may_queue() requires two
>>> atomic_read(active_queues and active_requests), I think this smoothing
>>> method can be placed into get_tag fail path, for example, the more times
>>> a disk failed to get tag in a period of time, the more tag this disk can
>>> get, and all the information can be updated here(perhaps directly
>>> record how many tags a disk can get, then hctx_may_queue() still only
>>> require 2 atomic_read()).
>>
>> That sounds interesting to me. Do you perhaps plan to implement this 
>> approach and to post it as a patch?
> 
> Of course, I'll try to send a RFC patch.

Hi Kuai,

Has this RFC patch already been posted or did I perhaps miss it?

Thanks,

Bart.