Re: [PATCH 0/2] NFS: Use complete() instead complete_all()

On 09/27/2016 04:33 AM, Daniel Wagner wrote: > On 09/27/2016 09:42 AM, Daniel Wagner wrote: >> Failures: generic/035 generic/087 generic/088 generic/089 generic/126 >> generic/184 generic/285 generic/347 generic/350 >> Failed 9 of 62 tests >> >> Hmm, not sure if this good or bad. Does it help? >

Re: [PATCH 0/2] NFS: Use complete() instead complete_all()

On 09/27/2016 04:33 AM, Daniel Wagner wrote: > On 09/27/2016 09:42 AM, Daniel Wagner wrote: >> Failures: generic/035 generic/087 generic/088 generic/089 generic/126 >> generic/184 generic/285 generic/347 generic/350 >> Failed 9 of 62 tests >> >> Hmm, not sure if this good or bad. Does it help? >

Re: [PATCH 0/2] NFS: Use complete() instead complete_all()

On 09/27/2016 09:42 AM, Daniel Wagner wrote: > Failures: generic/035 generic/087 generic/088 generic/089 generic/126 > generic/184 generic/285 generic/347 generic/350 > Failed 9 of 62 tests > > Hmm, not sure if this good or bad. Does it help? FWIW, running the same tests on non patched kernel

Re: [PATCH 0/2] NFS: Use complete() instead complete_all()

On 09/27/2016 09:42 AM, Daniel Wagner wrote: > Failures: generic/035 generic/087 generic/088 generic/089 generic/126 > generic/184 generic/285 generic/347 generic/350 > Failed 9 of 62 tests > > Hmm, not sure if this good or bad. Does it help? FWIW, running the same tests on non patched kernel

Re: [PATCH 0/2] NFS: Use complete() instead complete_all()

Hi Anna, On 09/26/2016 03:31 PM, Anna Schumaker wrote: > No, there are a handful that we know don't pass. When I run on NFS v4.1, I > get: > > Failures: generic/035 generic/071 generic/128 generic/294 > generic/306 generic/309 generic/310 generic/313 generic/314 > generic/315 generic/316

Re: [PATCH 0/2] NFS: Use complete() instead complete_all()

Hi Anna, On 09/26/2016 03:31 PM, Anna Schumaker wrote: > No, there are a handful that we know don't pass. When I run on NFS v4.1, I > get: > > Failures: generic/035 generic/071 generic/128 generic/294 > generic/306 generic/309 generic/310 generic/313 generic/314 > generic/315 generic/316

Re: [PATCH 0/2] NFS: Use complete() instead complete_all()

On 09/26/2016 01:33 AM, Daniel Wagner wrote: > Hi Anna, > > On 09/23/2016 03:48 PM, Anna Schumaker wrote: >>> Besides trying to analys all the code paths to the wait_for_completion() >>> call and convince myself that there is only one waiter, I also run >>> a few tests: >>> >>> - some fio

Re: [PATCH 0/2] NFS: Use complete() instead complete_all()

On 09/26/2016 01:33 AM, Daniel Wagner wrote: > Hi Anna, > > On 09/23/2016 03:48 PM, Anna Schumaker wrote: >>> Besides trying to analys all the code paths to the wait_for_completion() >>> call and convince myself that there is only one waiter, I also run >>> a few tests: >>> >>> - some fio

Re: [PATCH 0/2] NFS: Use complete() instead complete_all()

Hi Anna, On 09/23/2016 03:48 PM, Anna Schumaker wrote: Besides trying to analys all the code paths to the wait_for_completion() call and convince myself that there is only one waiter, I also run a few tests: - some fio benchmarks - pynfs -cthon04 Thanks for the patches, and for the

Re: [PATCH 0/2] NFS: Use complete() instead complete_all()

Hi Anna, On 09/23/2016 03:48 PM, Anna Schumaker wrote: Besides trying to analys all the code paths to the wait_for_completion() call and convince myself that there is only one waiter, I also run a few tests: - some fio benchmarks - pynfs -cthon04 Thanks for the patches, and for the

Re: [PATCH 0/2] NFS: Use complete() instead complete_all()

Hi Daniel, On 09/22/2016 07:54 AM, Daniel Wagner wrote: > From: Daniel Wagner > > Hi, > > Using complete_all() is not wrong per se but it suggest that there > might be more than one waiter. For -rt I am reviewing all > complete_all() users and would like to leave

Re: [PATCH 0/2] NFS: Use complete() instead complete_all()

Hi Daniel, On 09/22/2016 07:54 AM, Daniel Wagner wrote: > From: Daniel Wagner > > Hi, > > Using complete_all() is not wrong per se but it suggest that there > might be more than one waiter. For -rt I am reviewing all > complete_all() users and would like to leave only the real ones in the >

[PATCH 0/2] NFS: Use complete() instead complete_all()

From: Daniel Wagner Hi, Using complete_all() is not wrong per se but it suggest that there might be more than one waiter. For -rt I am reviewing all complete_all() users and would like to leave only the real ones in the tree. The main problem for -rt about

[PATCH 0/2] NFS: Use complete() instead complete_all()

From: Daniel Wagner Hi, Using complete_all() is not wrong per se but it suggest that there might be more than one waiter. For -rt I am reviewing all complete_all() users and would like to leave only the real ones in the tree. The main problem for -rt about complete_all() is that it can be uses