On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 06:13:10PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Wed 29-11-17 15:23:48, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > The question of whether or not a superblock is frozen needs to be
> > augmented in the future to account for differences between a user
> > initiated freeze and a kernel initiated free
On Sun, Apr 22, 2018 at 01:53:23AM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Fri 20-04-18 11:49:32, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 05:59:36PM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > > On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 12:03:29PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
> > > > Hello,
> > > >
> > > > I think I owe you a r
On Fri 20-04-18 11:49:32, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 05:59:36PM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 12:03:29PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > I think I owe you a reply here... Sorry that it took so long.
> >
> > Took me just as long
On Wed 18-04-18 14:08:26, Dave Chinner wrote:
> From: Dave Chinner
>
> Currently iomap_dio_rw() only handles (data)sync write completions
> for AIO. This means we can't optimised non-AIO IO to minimise device
> flushes as we can't tell the caller whether a flush is required or
> not.
>
> To solv
On Wed 18-04-18 14:08:28, Dave Chinner wrote:
> @@ -1012,8 +1035,16 @@ iomap_dio_rw(struct kiocb *iocb, struct iov_iter *iter,
> dio->flags |= IOMAP_DIO_DIRTY;
> } else {
> dio->flags |= IOMAP_DIO_WRITE;
> - if (iocb->ki_flags & IOCB_DSYNC)
> +
On 4/21/18 8:07 AM, Zhengyuan Liu wrote:
> 2018-04-20 22:34 GMT+08:00 Jens Axboe :
>> On 4/19/18 9:51 PM, Zhengyuan Liu wrote:
>>> Hi, Shaohua
>>>
>>> I found it indeed doesn't do front merge when two threads flush plug list
>>> concurrently. To
>>> reappear , I prepared two IO threads , named
On 4/21/18 9:05 AM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On Sat, 2018-04-21 at 22:55 +0800, jianchao.wang wrote:
>> So we have a __deadline as below:
>>
>> deadline gen state
>>> __||_|
>>
>>\___ __/
>>V
>> granular
On Sat, 2018-04-21 at 22:55 +0800, jianchao.wang wrote:
> So we have a __deadline as below:
>
> deadline gen state
> > __||_|
>
>\___ __/
>V
> granularity
>
> and even we usually have a 30~60s timeout
On 04/21/2018 10:10 PM, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 4/21/18 7:34 AM, jianchao.wang wrote:
>> Hi Bart
>>
>> Thanks for your kindly response.
>>
>> On 04/20/2018 10:11 PM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
>>> On Fri, 2018-04-20 at 14:55 +0800, jianchao.wang wrote:
Hi Bart
On 04/20/2018 12:43 AM, Ba
On 4/21/18 7:34 AM, jianchao.wang wrote:
> Hi Bart
>
> Thanks for your kindly response.
>
> On 04/20/2018 10:11 PM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
>> On Fri, 2018-04-20 at 14:55 +0800, jianchao.wang wrote:
>>> Hi Bart
>>>
>>> On 04/20/2018 12:43 AM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
Use the deadline instead of
2018-04-20 22:34 GMT+08:00 Jens Axboe :
> On 4/19/18 9:51 PM, Zhengyuan Liu wrote:
>> Hi, Shaohua
>>
>> I found it indeed doesn't do front merge when two threads flush plug list
>> concurrently. To
>> reappear , I prepared two IO threads , named a0.io and a1.io .
>> Thread a1.io uses libaio to
Hi Bart
Thanks for your kindly response.
On 04/20/2018 10:11 PM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On Fri, 2018-04-20 at 14:55 +0800, jianchao.wang wrote:
>> Hi Bart
>>
>> On 04/20/2018 12:43 AM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
>>> Use the deadline instead of the request generation to detect whether
>>> or not a
> Il giorno 20 apr 2018, alle ore 22:23, Kees Cook ha
> scritto:
>
> On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 2:32 AM, Paolo Valente
> wrote:
>> I'm missing something here. When the request gets completed in the
>> first place, the hook bfq_finish_requeue_request gets called, and that
>> hook clears both ->
13 matches
Mail list logo