On Wed, 2017-12-20 at 16:08 -0800, t...@kernel.org wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 11:41:02PM +, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> > On Tue, 2017-12-12 at 11:01 -0800, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > > Currently, blk-mq timeout path synchronizes against the usual
> > > issue/completion path using a complex
On Wed, 2017-12-20 at 16:08 -0800, t...@kernel.org wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 11:41:02PM +, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> > On Tue, 2017-12-12 at 11:01 -0800, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > > Currently, blk-mq timeout path synchronizes against the usual
> > > issue/completion path using a complex
On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 11:41:02PM +, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On Tue, 2017-12-12 at 11:01 -0800, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > Currently, blk-mq timeout path synchronizes against the usual
> > issue/completion path using a complex scheme involving atomic
> > bitflags, REQ_ATOM_*, memory barriers and
On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 11:41:02PM +, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On Tue, 2017-12-12 at 11:01 -0800, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > Currently, blk-mq timeout path synchronizes against the usual
> > issue/completion path using a complex scheme involving atomic
> > bitflags, REQ_ATOM_*, memory barriers and
On Tue, 2017-12-12 at 11:01 -0800, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Currently, blk-mq timeout path synchronizes against the usual
> issue/completion path using a complex scheme involving atomic
> bitflags, REQ_ATOM_*, memory barriers and subtle memory coherence
> rules. Unfortunatley, it contains quite a few
On Tue, 2017-12-12 at 11:01 -0800, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Currently, blk-mq timeout path synchronizes against the usual
> issue/completion path using a complex scheme involving atomic
> bitflags, REQ_ATOM_*, memory barriers and subtle memory coherence
> rules. Unfortunatley, it contains quite a few
Hello, Jens.
On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 01:23:01PM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
> I like this a lot, it's a lot less fragile and more intuitive/readable
> than what we have now. And apparently less error prone... I'll do
> some testing with this.
Great.
> BTW, since youadd a few more BLK_MQ_F_BLOCKING
Hello, Jens.
On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 01:23:01PM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
> I like this a lot, it's a lot less fragile and more intuitive/readable
> than what we have now. And apparently less error prone... I'll do
> some testing with this.
Great.
> BTW, since youadd a few more BLK_MQ_F_BLOCKING
On 12/12/2017 12:01 PM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Changes from the last version[1]
>
> - BLK_EH_RESET_TIMER handling fixed.
>
> - s/request->gstate_seqc/request->gstate_seq/
>
> - READ_ONCE() added to blk_mq_rq_udpate_state().
>
> - Removed left over blk_clear_rq_complete() invocation from
>
On 12/12/2017 12:01 PM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Changes from the last version[1]
>
> - BLK_EH_RESET_TIMER handling fixed.
>
> - s/request->gstate_seqc/request->gstate_seq/
>
> - READ_ONCE() added to blk_mq_rq_udpate_state().
>
> - Removed left over blk_clear_rq_complete() invocation from
>
Changes from the last version[1]
- BLK_EH_RESET_TIMER handling fixed.
- s/request->gstate_seqc/request->gstate_seq/
- READ_ONCE() added to blk_mq_rq_udpate_state().
- Removed left over blk_clear_rq_complete() invocation from
blk_mq_rq_timed_out().
Currently, blk-mq timeout path synchronizes
Changes from the last version[1]
- BLK_EH_RESET_TIMER handling fixed.
- s/request->gstate_seqc/request->gstate_seq/
- READ_ONCE() added to blk_mq_rq_udpate_state().
- Removed left over blk_clear_rq_complete() invocation from
blk_mq_rq_timed_out().
Currently, blk-mq timeout path synchronizes
12 matches
Mail list logo
