Hi Robert,
On Sun, Jul 13, 2014 at 05:15:15PM +, Elliott, Robert (Server Storage)
wrote:
> > > I will see if that solves the problem with the scsi-mq-3 tree, or
> > > at least some of the bisect trees leading up to it.
> >
> > scsi-mq-3 is still going after 45 minutes. I'll leave it running
On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 02:33:12PM +, Elliott, Robert (Server Storage)
wrote:
> That ran 9 total hours with no problem.
>
> Rather than revert in the bisect trees, I added just this single additional
> patch to the no-rebase tree, and the problem appeared:
Can you try the below totally untes
On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 02:36:40PM +, Elliott, Robert (Server Storage)
wrote:
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Jens Axboe [mailto:ax...@kernel.dk]
> > Sent: Thursday, 10 July, 2014 8:53 AM
> > To: Christoph Hellwig; Benjamin LaHaise
> >
On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 03:48:10PM +0200, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 2014-07-10 15:44, Benjamin LaHaise wrote:
> >On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 03:39:57PM +0200, Jens Axboe wrote:
> >>That's how fio always runs, it sets up the context with the exact queue
> >>depth that it
On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 03:39:57PM +0200, Jens Axboe wrote:
> That's how fio always runs, it sets up the context with the exact queue
> depth that it needs. Do we have a good enough understanding of other aio
> use cases to say that this isn't the norm? I would expect it to be, it's
> the way th
On Wed, Jul 09, 2014 at 11:20:40PM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 12:53:36AM +, Elliott, Robert (Server Storage)
> wrote:
> > the problem still occurs - fio results in low or 0 IOPS, with perf top
> > reporting unusual amounts of time spent in do_io_submit and io_su
Hi folks,
On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 11:23:32AM -0700, Zach Brown wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 09:30:41PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > This RFC provides a rough implementation of a mechanism to allow
> > userspace to attach protection information (e.g. T10 DIF) data to a
> > disk write and t
On Thu, May 17, 2007 at 01:39:54PM -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Fri, May 18, 2007 at 12:34:40AM +0530, Satyam Sharma wrote:
> > Hmmm, actually those other users could easily write and maintain
> > a 20-line patch that does the wait for async scans thing for them
> > using /proc/scsi/scsi in an
On Thu, May 17, 2007 at 01:45:24PM -0400, James Bottomley wrote:
> But also, the sysfs with over 4,000 (and higher) devices was
> specifically checked by OSDL (actually as part of the CGL testing) some
> of the Manoj changes (for unpinning entries etc) were needed to get it
> to function, but as of
On Wed, May 16, 2007 at 04:57:52AM +0530, Satyam Sharma wrote:
>
> echo 1 > /sys/module/scsi_mod/.../wait_for_async_scans
>
> somewhere in some script. In fact, the latter method seems simpler,
> saner, better (in every which way)!
Please don't force sysfs on people. Just watch how it keels ove
A single file per patch is not really a patch split up. Patches should
stand on their own, leaving the tree in a compilable functioning state
during each step.
-ben
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECT
11 matches
Mail list logo
