On Fri 13-05-16 12:29:10, Jens Axboe wrote:
> Thanks Jan, this is great and super useful! I'm revamping certain parts of
> it to deal with write back caching better, and I'll take a look at the
> regressions that you reported.
>
> What kind of SSD is this? I'm assuming it's SATA (QD=32), and then
On 05/11/2016 10:36 AM, Jan Kara wrote:
On Tue 03-05-16 14:17:19, Jan Kara wrote:
The question remains how common a pattern where throttling of background
writeback delays also something else is. I'll schedule a couple of
benchmarks to measure impact of your patches for a wider range of workload
On Tue 03-05-16 14:17:19, Jan Kara wrote:
> The question remains how common a pattern where throttling of background
> writeback delays also something else is. I'll schedule a couple of
> benchmarks to measure impact of your patches for a wider range of workloads
> (but sadly pretty limited set of
On Tue 03-05-16 09:42:40, Chris Mason wrote:
> On Tue, May 03, 2016 at 03:06:09PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> > On Tue 03-05-16 08:40:11, Chris Mason wrote:
> > > On Tue, May 03, 2016 at 02:17:19PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> > > > On Thu 28-04-16 12:46:41, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > > > > >>- rwb->wb_max =
On Tue, May 03, 2016 at 03:06:09PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Tue 03-05-16 08:40:11, Chris Mason wrote:
> > On Tue, May 03, 2016 at 02:17:19PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> > > On Thu 28-04-16 12:46:41, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > > > >>- rwb->wb_max = 1 + ((depth - 1) >> min(31U, rwb->scale_step));
> >
On Tue 03-05-16 08:40:11, Chris Mason wrote:
> On Tue, May 03, 2016 at 02:17:19PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> > On Thu 28-04-16 12:46:41, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > > >>- rwb->wb_max = 1 + ((depth - 1) >> min(31U, rwb->scale_step));
> > > >>- rwb->wb_normal = (rwb->wb_max + 1) / 2;
> > > >>-
On Tue, May 03, 2016 at 02:17:19PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Thu 28-04-16 12:46:41, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > >>- rwb->wb_max = 1 + ((depth - 1) >> min(31U, rwb->scale_step));
> > >>- rwb->wb_normal = (rwb->wb_max + 1) / 2;
> > >>- rwb->wb_background = (rwb->wb_max + 3) / 4;
> > >>+ if (rwb->queue_de
On Thu 28-04-16 12:46:41, Jens Axboe wrote:
> >>- rwb->wb_max = 1 + ((depth - 1) >> min(31U, rwb->scale_step));
> >>- rwb->wb_normal = (rwb->wb_max + 1) / 2;
> >>- rwb->wb_background = (rwb->wb_max + 3) / 4;
> >>+ if (rwb->queue_depth == 1) {
> >>+ rwb->wb_max = rwb->wb_normal = 2
On 04/28/2016 05:54 AM, Jan Kara wrote:
On Wed 27-04-16 14:59:15, Jens Axboe wrote:
On Wed, Apr 27 2016, Jens Axboe wrote:
On Wed, Apr 27 2016, Jens Axboe wrote:
On 04/27/2016 12:01 PM, Jan Kara wrote:
Hi,
On Tue 26-04-16 09:55:23, Jens Axboe wrote:
Since the dawn of time, our background bu
On 04/27/2016 10:06 PM, xiakaixu wrote:
diff --git a/lib/wbt.c b/lib/wbt.c
index 650da911f24f..322f5e04e994 100644
--- a/lib/wbt.c
+++ b/lib/wbt.c
@@ -98,18 +98,23 @@ void __wbt_done(struct rq_wb *rwb)
else
limit = rwb->wb_normal;
Hi Jens,
This statement 'limit = rwb->wb
On Wed 27-04-16 14:59:15, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 27 2016, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 27 2016, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > > On 04/27/2016 12:01 PM, Jan Kara wrote:
> > > >Hi,
> > > >
> > > >On Tue 26-04-16 09:55:23, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > > >>Since the dawn of time, our background buffered
δΊ 2016/4/28 4:59, Jens Axboe ει:
> On Wed, Apr 27 2016, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 27 2016, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>> On 04/27/2016 12:01 PM, Jan Kara wrote:
Hi,
On Tue 26-04-16 09:55:23, Jens Axboe wrote:
> Since the dawn of time, our background buffered writeback has sucked.
On Wed, Apr 27 2016, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 27 2016, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > On 04/27/2016 12:01 PM, Jan Kara wrote:
> > >Hi,
> > >
> > >On Tue 26-04-16 09:55:23, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > >>Since the dawn of time, our background buffered writeback has sucked.
> > >>When we do background buffere
On Wed, Apr 27 2016, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 04/27/2016 12:01 PM, Jan Kara wrote:
> >Hi,
> >
> >On Tue 26-04-16 09:55:23, Jens Axboe wrote:
> >>Since the dawn of time, our background buffered writeback has sucked.
> >>When we do background buffered writeback, it should have little impact
> >>on fore
On 04/27/2016 12:01 PM, Jan Kara wrote:
Hi,
On Tue 26-04-16 09:55:23, Jens Axboe wrote:
Since the dawn of time, our background buffered writeback has sucked.
When we do background buffered writeback, it should have little impact
on foreground activity. That's the definition of background activi
Hi,
On Tue 26-04-16 09:55:23, Jens Axboe wrote:
> Since the dawn of time, our background buffered writeback has sucked.
> When we do background buffered writeback, it should have little impact
> on foreground activity. That's the definition of background activity...
> But for as long as I can reme
Hi,
Since the dawn of time, our background buffered writeback has sucked.
When we do background buffered writeback, it should have little impact
on foreground activity. That's the definition of background activity...
But for as long as I can remember, heavy buffered writers have not
behaved like t
17 matches
Mail list logo
