linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH] [RFC] Fix jbd2 to stop waking up sleeping disks on sync

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]

Date: Thu, 29 Feb 2024 15:19:50 -0500
From: Phillip Susi <phill@...susis.net>
To: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
Cc: linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [RFC] Fix jbd2 to stop waking up sleeping disks on sync

"Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu> writes:

> Because no metadata changed, jbd2 will not even *start* a (jbd2)
> transaction as a result of that write (overwrite) to an already
> allocated data block..  Since it didn't start a jbd2 transaction for
> this file system operation, there's no reason to force a jbd2
> transaction to close.
>
> (Note: this could because there *is* no currently existing open
> transaction, or there might be a currently open transaction, but it's
> not relevent to the activity associated with the file descriptor being
> fsync'ed.)
>
> This is a critical performance optimization, because for many database
> workloads, which are overwriting existing blocks and using
> fdatasync(2), there is no reason to force a jbd2 transaction commit
> for every single fdatasync(2) issued by the database.  However, we
> still need to send a cache flush operation so that the data block is
> safely persistend onto stable storage.

So maybe what ext4's sync_fs needs to know is whether ANY writes have
been done since the last transaction committed?  Is there a way to know
that?  As long as NOTHING has been written since the last commit, then
there is no need to issue a flush.