On 2025/2/19 5:14, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 18, 2025 at 05:21:27PM +0800, Yunsheng Lin wrote:
>> On 2025/2/18 5:31, Dave Chinner wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>
>>> .
>>>
>>>> diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_buf.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_buf.c
>>>>
On 2025/2/18 5:31, Dave Chinner wrote:
...
> .
>
>> diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_buf.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_buf.c
>> index 15bb790359f8..9e1ce0ab9c35 100644
>> --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_buf.c
>> +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_buf.c
>> @@ -377,16 +377,17 @@ xfs_buf_alloc_pages(
>> * least one extra page.
>> */
>>
On 2025/2/17 22:20, Chuck Lever wrote:
> On 2/17/25 7:31 AM, Yunsheng Lin wrote:
>> As mentioned in [1], it seems odd to check NULL elements in
>> the middle of page bulk allocating,
>
> I think I requested that check to be added to the bulk page allocator.
>
> When
proves from 87.886 ns to 86.429 ns.
1. https://lore.kernel.org/all/bd8c2f5c-464d-44ab-b607-390a87ea4...@huawei.com/
2. https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250212092552.1779679-1-linyunsh...@huawei.com/
CC: Jesper Dangaard Brouer
CC: Luiz Capitulino
CC: Mel Gorman
CC: Dave Chinner
CC: Chuck Lever
Signed-off-by
On 2025/3/7 5:14, NeilBrown wrote:
> On Thu, 06 Mar 2025, Yunsheng Lin wrote:
>> On 2025/3/6 7:41, NeilBrown wrote:
>>> On Wed, 05 Mar 2025, Yunsheng Lin wrote:
>>>>
>>>> For the existing btrfs and sunrpc case, I am agreed that there
>>>> mig
On 3/8/2025 2:43 PM, Dave Chinner wrote:
...
I tested XFS using the below cmd and testcase, testing seems
to be working fine, or am I missing something obvious here
as I am not realy familiar with fs subsystem yet:
That's hardly what I'd call a test. It barely touches the filesystem
at all, a
On 3/8/2025 5:02 AM, NeilBrown wrote:
...
allocated pages in the array - just like the current
alloc_pages_bulk().
I guess 'the total number of allocated pages in the array ' include
the pages which are already in the array before calling the above
API?
Yes - just what the current f
t;> CC: Luiz Capitulino
>> CC: Mel Gorman
>> CC: Dave Chinner
>> CC: Chuck Lever
>> Signed-off-by: Yunsheng Lin
>> Acked-by: Jeff Layton
>> ---
>> V2:
>> 1. Drop RFC tag and rebased on latest linux-next.
>> 2. Fix a compile error for xfs.
On 2025/3/4 6:13, Chuck Lever wrote:
> On 2/28/25 4:44 AM, Yunsheng Lin wrote:
>> As mentioned in [1], it seems odd to check NULL elements in
>> the middle of page bulk allocating, and it seems caller can
>> do a better job of bulk allocating pages into a whole array
&g
On 2025/3/6 7:41, NeilBrown wrote:
> On Wed, 05 Mar 2025, Yunsheng Lin wrote:
>>
>> For the existing btrfs and sunrpc case, I am agreed that there
>> might be valid use cases too, we just need to discuss how to
>> meet the requirements of different use cases using s
On 2025/3/10 8:32, Gao Xiang wrote:
...
>>
>> Also, it seems the fstests doesn't support erofs yet?
>
> erofs is an read-only filesystem, and almost all xfstests
> cases is unsuitable for erofs since erofs needs to preset
> dataset in advance for runtime testing and only
> read-related interface
On 2025/3/4 17:17, Qu Wenruo wrote:
>
>
> 在 2025/2/28 20:14, Yunsheng Lin 写道:
>> As mentioned in [1], it seems odd to check NULL elements in
>> the middle of page bulk allocating, and it seems caller can
>> do a better job of bulk allocating pages into a whole ar
: Yunsheng Lin
---
drivers/vfio/pci/virtio/migrate.c | 2 --
fs/btrfs/extent_io.c | 8 +---
fs/erofs/zutil.c | 12 ++--
fs/xfs/xfs_buf.c | 9 +
mm/page_alloc.c | 32 +--
net/core/page_pool.c
On 2025/2/18 22:17, Chuck Lever wrote:
> On 2/18/25 4:16 AM, Yunsheng Lin wrote:
>> On 2025/2/17 22:20, Chuck Lever wrote:
>>> On 2/17/25 7:31 AM, Yunsheng Lin wrote:
>>>> As mentioned in [1], it seems odd to check NULL elements in
>>>> the middle
14 matches
Mail list logo
