qs);
+ } else
req_vq = virtscsi_pick_vq(vscsi, tgt);
return virtscsi_queuecommand(vscsi, req_vq, sc);
Signed-off-by: Felipe Franciosi
Please consider this a urgent fix as all of our customers which use
Ubuntu 16.04 and have MQ enabled for better performance w
_vq(vscsi, tgt);
return virtscsi_queuecommand(vscsi, req_vq, sc);
Signed-off-by: Felipe Franciosi
Please consider this a urgent fix as all of our customers which use
Ubuntu 16.04 and have MQ enabled for better performance will be
affected by your latest update. Our workaround is
(vscsi, tgt);
Signed-off-by: Felipe Franciosi
-8<-
I'm happy to test it again if you'd like, but it should be functionally
identical.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Kernel
Packages, which is subscribed to linux in Ubun
_inc(&tgt->reqs);
+ + } else
req_vq = virtscsi_pick_vq(vscsi, tgt);
return virtscsi_queuecommand(vscsi, req_vq, sc);
Signed-off-by: Felipe Franciosi
-
- Please consider this a urgent fix as all of our customers which use Ubuntu
16.04 and have MQ enabled for
atomic_inc(&tgt->reqs);
- } else
+ else
req_vq = virtscsi_pick_vq(vscsi, tgt);
return virtscsi_queuecommand(vscsi, req_vq, sc);
Signed-off-by: Felipe Franciosi
Please consider this a urgent fix as all of our customers which use Ubuntu
16.0
host_use_blk_mq(sh)) {
+ if (shost_use_blk_mq(sh))
req_vq = virtscsi_pick_vq_mq(vscsi, sc);
- atomic_inc(&tgt->reqs);
- } else
+ else
req_vq = virtscsi_pick_vq(vscsi, tgt);
return virtscsi_queuecommand(vscsi, req_vq, sc);
Signed
** Attachment removed: "Saucy x86_64 without the backports"
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/1319003/+attachment/4123531/+files/saucy.png
** Attachment removed: "Saucy x86_64 with the backports"
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/1319003/+attachment/41
** Attachment added: "Saucy x86_64 guests without the backports"
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/1319003/+attachment/4123555/+files/saucy64.png
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Kernel
Packages, which is subscribed to linux in Ubuntu.
https
** Attachment added: "Saucy x86_64 without the backports"
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/1319003/+attachment/4123531/+files/saucy.png
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Kernel
Packages, which is subscribed to linux in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.l
** Attachment added: "Saucy x86_64 with the backports"
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/1319003/+attachment/4123532/+files/saucy-backports.png
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Kernel
Packages, which is subscribed to linux in Ubuntu.
https:/
Joseph, apologies for the delay on this. I have finally managed to
retest the kernel you have provided.
For reference, I added the following disks to my server:
* 4 x Micron P320
* 2 x Intel 910s (presented as 4 separate SCSI devices)
* 1 x Fusion-io ioDrive2
I created 10 LVM Logical Volumes on e
Thanks for the prompt attention to this matter. My environment for
testing is currently busy, but I should be able to get access by the end
of next week (23/May). I'll comment as soon as I have some results.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Kernel
Packages, which
I am unable to collect logs with apport-collect as I do not have a set of
Ubuntu guests setup for repro at the moment.
I also believe logs are not relevant for this particular case.
** Changed in: linux (Ubuntu)
Status: Incomplete => Confirmed
--
You received this bug notification becaus
** Description changed:
Description of problem:
When used as a Xen guest, Ubuntu 13.10 may be slower than older releases in
terms of storage performance. This is due to the persistent-grants feature
introduced in xen-blkfront on the Linux Kernel 3.8 series. From 3.8 to 3.12
(inclusive), xen
14 matches
Mail list logo
