On Sun, May 21, 2017 at 12:04:27AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 05:32:12PM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > Is block device(esp, zram which is compressed ram block device) okay to
> > return garbage when ongoing overwrite IO fails?
> >
> > O_DIRECT write 4 block "aaa.." -
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 05:32:12PM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
> Is block device(esp, zram which is compressed ram block device) okay to
> return garbage when ongoing overwrite IO fails?
>
> O_DIRECT write 4 block "aaa.." -> success
> read 4 block "aaa.." -> success
> O_DIRECT write 4 block "bbb.."
Hi Sergey,
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 06:14:23PM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> Hello Minchan,
>
> On (05/17/17 17:32), Minchan Kim wrote:
> [..]
> > > what we can return now is a `partially updated' data, with some new
> > > and some stale pages. this is quite unlikely to end up anywhere good.
Hello Minchan,
On (05/17/17 17:32), Minchan Kim wrote:
[..]
> > what we can return now is a `partially updated' data, with some new
> > and some stale pages. this is quite unlikely to end up anywhere good.
> > am I wrong?
> >
> > why does `rd block 4' in your case causes Oops? as a worst case sce
Hi Sergey,
On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 04:36:17PM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> On (05/16/17 16:16), Minchan Kim wrote:
> > > but would this be correct? the data is not valid - we failed to store
> > > the valid one. but instead we assure application that read()/swapin/etc.,
> > > depending on th
On (05/16/17 16:16), Minchan Kim wrote:
> > but would this be correct? the data is not valid - we failed to store
> > the valid one. but instead we assure application that read()/swapin/etc.,
> > depending on the usage scenario, is successful (even though the data is
> > not what application really
On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 02:45:33PM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> On (05/16/17 14:26), Minchan Kim wrote:
> [..]
> > > + /*
> > > +* Free memory associated with this sector
> > > +* before overwriting unused sectors.
> > > +*/
> > > + zram_slot_lock(zram, ind
On (05/16/17 14:26), Minchan Kim wrote:
[..]
> > + /*
> > +* Free memory associated with this sector
> > +* before overwriting unused sectors.
> > +*/
> > + zram_slot_lock(zram, index);
> > + zram_free_page(zram, index);
>
> Hmm, zram_free should happen on
On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 11:36:15AM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> > > > @@ -794,7 +801,15 @@ static int __zram_bvec_write(struct zram *zram,
> > > > struct bio_vec *bvec, u32 index)
> > > > entry = zram_dedup_find(zram, page, &checksum);
> > > > if (entry) {
> > > >
Hello Minchan,
On (05/16/17 10:59), Minchan Kim wrote:
> Hi Sergey,
>
[..]
> You mean this?
>
> static void zram_free_page(..) {
> if (zram_test_flag(zram, index, ZRAM_SAME))
> ...
>
> if (!entry)
> return;
>
> if (zram_dedup_enabled(zram
Hi Sergey,
On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 10:30:22AM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> On (05/15/17 16:41), Minchan Kim wrote:
> [..]
> > diff --git a/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c b/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c
> > index b885356551e9..8152e405117b 100644
> > --- a/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c
> > +++
On (05/15/17 16:41), Minchan Kim wrote:
[..]
> diff --git a/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c b/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c
> index b885356551e9..8152e405117b 100644
> --- a/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c
> +++ b/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c
> @@ -624,15 +624,22 @@ static void zram_free_page(struct z
12 matches
Mail list logo
