Hi Sergey,
On Fri, Oct 07, 2016 at 03:33:22PM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
< snip >
> > so the question is -- can we move this parallelization out of zram
> > and instead flush bdi in more than one kthread? how bad that would
> > be? can anyone else benefit from this?
>
> Isn't it blk-mq you
Hello Minchan,
On (10/07/16 15:33), Minchan Kim wrote:
[..]
> > as soon as wb flush kworker can't keep up anymore things are going off
> > the rails. most of the time, fio-template-static-buffer are in D state,
> > while the biggest bdi flush kworker is doing the job (a lot of job):
> >
> >
Hi Sergey,
On Thu, Oct 06, 2016 at 05:29:15PM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> Hello Minchan,
>
> On (10/05/16 11:01), Minchan Kim wrote:
> [..]
> > 1. just changed ordering of test execution - hope to reduce testing time
> > due to
> >block population before the first reading or reading
Hello Minchan,
On (10/05/16 11:01), Minchan Kim wrote:
[..]
> 1. just changed ordering of test execution - hope to reduce testing time due
> to
>block population before the first reading or reading just zero pages
> 2. used sync_on_close instead of direct io
> 3. Don't use perf to avoid
Hi Sergey,
On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 01:43:14PM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
< snip >
> TEST
>
>
> new tests results; same tests, same conditions, same .config.
> 4-way test:
> - BASE zram, fio direct=1
> - BASE zram, fio fsync_on_close=1
> - NEW zram, fio direct=1
> - NEW zram, fio
Hi Sergey,
On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 01:43:14PM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Cc Jens and block-dev,
>
> I'll outline the commit message for Jens and blockdev people, may be
> someone will have some thoughts/ideas/opinions:
Thanks for Ccing relevant poeple. Even, I didn't know we
