On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 09:52:46PM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 10:57:48AM +, Mel Gorman wrote:
So far on the table is
1. major filesystem overhawl
2. major vm overhawl
3. use compound pages as they are today and hope it does not go
completely to hell,
On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 10:57:48AM +, Mel Gorman wrote:
So far on the table is
1. major filesystem overhawl
2. major vm overhawl
3. use compound pages as they are today and hope it does not go
completely to hell, reboot when it does
Is the below paragraph an exposition of option 2,
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 09:52:46PM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 10:57:48AM +, Mel Gorman wrote:
So far on the table is
1. major filesystem overhawl
2. major vm overhawl
3. use compound pages as they are today and hope it does not go
completely to hell,
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 11:55:35AM -0800, James Bottomley wrote:
SNIP
The real benefit is when and how the reads get scheduled. We're
able to
do a much better job pipelining the reads, controlling our caches
and
reducing write latency by having the reads done
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 02:47:10PM -0600, Christoph Lameter wrote:
On Wed, 22 Jan 2014, Mel Gorman wrote:
Large block support was proposed years ago by Christoph Lameter
(http://lwn.net/Articles/232757/). I think I was just getting started
in the community at the time so I do not recall
On Fri, 24 Jan 2014, Mel Gorman wrote:
That'd be okish for 64-bit at least although it would show up as
degraded performance in some cases when virtually contiguous buffers were
used. Aside from the higher setup, access costs and teardown costs of a
virtual contiguous buffer, the underlying
On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 02:34:52PM +, Mel Gorman wrote:
On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 09:10:48AM -0500, Ric Wheeler wrote:
On 01/22/2014 04:34 AM, Mel Gorman wrote:
On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 10:04:29PM -0500, Ric Wheeler wrote:
One topic that has been lurking forever at the edges is the current
On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 10:13:59AM -0800, James Bottomley wrote:
On Wed, 2014-01-22 at 18:02 +, Chris Mason wrote:
On Wed, 2014-01-22 at 09:21 -0800, James Bottomley wrote:
On Wed, 2014-01-22 at 17:02 +, Chris Mason wrote:
[ I like big sectors and I cannot lie ]
I think I
On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 09:21:40AM -0800, James Bottomley wrote:
On Wed, 2014-01-22 at 17:02 +, Chris Mason wrote:
On Wed, 2014-01-22 at 15:19 +, Mel Gorman wrote:
On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 09:58:46AM -0500, Ric Wheeler wrote:
On 01/22/2014 09:34 AM, Mel Gorman wrote:
On Wed,
On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 11:50:02AM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Wed, 22 Jan 2014 11:30:19 -0800 James Bottomley
james.bottom...@hansenpartnership.com wrote:
But this, I think, is the fundamental point for debate. If we can pull
alignment and other tricks to solve 99% of the problem is
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 07:35:58PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
I expect it would be relatively simple to get large blocksizes working
on powerpc with 64k PAGE_SIZE. So before diving in and doing huge
amounts of work, perhaps someone can do a proof-of-concept on powerpc
(or ia64) with
On Thu, 2014-01-23 at 19:27 +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 10:13:59AM -0800, James Bottomley wrote:
On Wed, 2014-01-22 at 18:02 +, Chris Mason wrote:
On Wed, 2014-01-22 at 09:21 -0800, James Bottomley wrote:
On Wed, 2014-01-22 at 17:02 +, Chris Mason wrote:
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 07:47:53AM -0800, James Bottomley wrote:
On Thu, 2014-01-23 at 19:27 +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 10:13:59AM -0800, James Bottomley wrote:
On Wed, 2014-01-22 at 18:02 +, Chris Mason wrote:
On Wed, 2014-01-22 at 09:21 -0800, James
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 07:55:50AM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 07:35:58PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
I expect it would be relatively simple to get large blocksizes working
on powerpc with 64k PAGE_SIZE. So before diving in and doing huge
amounts of work,
On Thu, 2014-01-23 at 16:44 +, Mel Gorman wrote:
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 07:47:53AM -0800, James Bottomley wrote:
On Thu, 2014-01-23 at 19:27 +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 10:13:59AM -0800, James Bottomley wrote:
On Wed, 2014-01-22 at 18:02 +, Chris Mason
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 04:44:38PM +, Mel Gorman wrote:
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 07:47:53AM -0800, James Bottomley wrote:
On Thu, 2014-01-23 at 19:27 +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 10:13:59AM -0800, James Bottomley wrote:
On Wed, 2014-01-22 at 18:02 +, Chris
On Wed, 22 Jan 2014, Mel Gorman wrote:
Don't get me wrong, I'm interested in the topic but I severely doubt I'd
have the capacity to research the background of this in advance. It's also
unlikely that I'd work on it in the future without throwing out my current
TODO list. In an ideal world
On Wed, 22 Jan 2014, Mel Gorman wrote:
Large block support was proposed years ago by Christoph Lameter
(http://lwn.net/Articles/232757/). I think I was just getting started
in the community at the time so I do not recall any of the details. I do
believe it motivated an alternative by Nick
On Thu, 23 Jan 2014, James Bottomley wrote:
If the compound page infrastructure exists today and is usable for this,
what else do we need to do? ... because if it's a couple of trivial
changes and a few minor patches to filesystems to take advantage of it,
we might as well do it anyway. I
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 07:55:50AM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 07:35:58PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
I expect it would be relatively simple to get large blocksizes working
on powerpc with 64k PAGE_SIZE. So before diving in and doing huge
amounts of work,
On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 10:47:01AM -0800, James Bottomley wrote:
On Wed, 2014-01-22 at 18:37 +, Chris Mason wrote:
On Wed, 2014-01-22 at 10:13 -0800, James Bottomley wrote:
On Wed, 2014-01-22 at 18:02 +, Chris Mason wrote:
[agreement cut because it's boring for the reader]
On Thu, 2014-01-23 at 13:27 -0800, Joel Becker wrote:
On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 10:47:01AM -0800, James Bottomley wrote:
On Wed, 2014-01-22 at 18:37 +, Chris Mason wrote:
On Wed, 2014-01-22 at 10:13 -0800, James Bottomley wrote:
On Wed, 2014-01-22 at 18:02 +, Chris Mason wrote:
On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 10:04:29PM -0500, Ric Wheeler wrote:
One topic that has been lurking forever at the edges is the current
4k limitation for file system block sizes. Some devices in
production today and others coming soon have larger sectors and it
would be interesting to see if it is
On 01/22/2014 04:34 AM, Mel Gorman wrote:
On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 10:04:29PM -0500, Ric Wheeler wrote:
One topic that has been lurking forever at the edges is the current
4k limitation for file system block sizes. Some devices in
production today and others coming soon have larger sectors and
On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 09:10:48AM -0500, Ric Wheeler wrote:
On 01/22/2014 04:34 AM, Mel Gorman wrote:
On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 10:04:29PM -0500, Ric Wheeler wrote:
One topic that has been lurking forever at the edges is the current
4k limitation for file system block sizes. Some devices in
On 01/22/2014 09:34 AM, Mel Gorman wrote:
On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 09:10:48AM -0500, Ric Wheeler wrote:
On 01/22/2014 04:34 AM, Mel Gorman wrote:
On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 10:04:29PM -0500, Ric Wheeler wrote:
One topic that has been lurking forever at the edges is the current
4k limitation for
On Wed, 2014-01-22 at 09:34 +, Mel Gorman wrote:
On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 10:04:29PM -0500, Ric Wheeler wrote:
One topic that has been lurking forever at the edges is the current
4k limitation for file system block sizes. Some devices in
production today and others coming soon have
On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 09:58:46AM -0500, Ric Wheeler wrote:
On 01/22/2014 09:34 AM, Mel Gorman wrote:
On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 09:10:48AM -0500, Ric Wheeler wrote:
On 01/22/2014 04:34 AM, Mel Gorman wrote:
On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 10:04:29PM -0500, Ric Wheeler wrote:
One topic that has been
On Tue, 2014-01-21 at 22:04 -0500, Ric Wheeler wrote:
One topic that has been lurking forever at the edges is the current 4k
limitation for file system block sizes. Some devices in production today and
others coming soon have larger sectors and it would be interesting to see if
it
is time
On Wed, 2014-01-22 at 15:14 +, Chris Mason wrote:
On Wed, 2014-01-22 at 09:34 +, Mel Gorman wrote:
On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 10:04:29PM -0500, Ric Wheeler wrote:
One topic that has been lurking forever at the edges is the current
4k limitation for file system block sizes. Some
On 01/22/2014 11:03 AM, James Bottomley wrote:
On Wed, 2014-01-22 at 15:14 +, Chris Mason wrote:
On Wed, 2014-01-22 at 09:34 +, Mel Gorman wrote:
On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 10:04:29PM -0500, Ric Wheeler wrote:
One topic that has been lurking forever at the edges is the current
4k
On Wed, 2014-01-22 at 15:19 +, Mel Gorman wrote:
On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 09:58:46AM -0500, Ric Wheeler wrote:
On 01/22/2014 09:34 AM, Mel Gorman wrote:
On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 09:10:48AM -0500, Ric Wheeler wrote:
On 01/22/2014 04:34 AM, Mel Gorman wrote:
On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at
On Wed, 2014-01-22 at 11:45 -0500, Ric Wheeler wrote:
On 01/22/2014 11:03 AM, James Bottomley wrote:
On Wed, 2014-01-22 at 15:14 +, Chris Mason wrote:
On Wed, 2014-01-22 at 09:34 +, Mel Gorman wrote:
On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 10:04:29PM -0500, Ric Wheeler wrote:
One topic that has
On Wed, 2014-01-22 at 17:02 +, Chris Mason wrote:
On Wed, 2014-01-22 at 15:19 +, Mel Gorman wrote:
On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 09:58:46AM -0500, Ric Wheeler wrote:
On 01/22/2014 09:34 AM, Mel Gorman wrote:
On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 09:10:48AM -0500, Ric Wheeler wrote:
On 01/22/2014
On Wed, 2014-01-22 at 09:21 -0800, James Bottomley wrote:
On Wed, 2014-01-22 at 17:02 +, Chris Mason wrote:
[ I like big sectors and I cannot lie ]
I really think that if we want to make progress on this one, we need
code and someone that owns it. Nick's work was impressive, but it
On Wed, 2014-01-22 at 18:02 +, Chris Mason wrote:
On Wed, 2014-01-22 at 09:21 -0800, James Bottomley wrote:
On Wed, 2014-01-22 at 17:02 +, Chris Mason wrote:
[ I like big sectors and I cannot lie ]
I think I might be sceptical, but I don't think that's showing in my
concerns ...
On 01/22/2014 01:13 PM, James Bottomley wrote:
On Wed, 2014-01-22 at 18:02 +, Chris Mason wrote:
On Wed, 2014-01-22 at 09:21 -0800, James Bottomley wrote:
On Wed, 2014-01-22 at 17:02 +, Chris Mason wrote:
[ I like big sectors and I cannot lie ]
I think I might be sceptical, but I
On Wed, 2014-01-22 at 13:17 -0500, Ric Wheeler wrote:
On 01/22/2014 01:13 PM, James Bottomley wrote:
On Wed, 2014-01-22 at 18:02 +, Chris Mason wrote:
On Wed, 2014-01-22 at 09:21 -0800, James Bottomley wrote:
On Wed, 2014-01-22 at 17:02 +, Chris Mason wrote:
[ I like big sectors
On Wed, 2014-01-22 at 10:13 -0800, James Bottomley wrote:
On Wed, 2014-01-22 at 18:02 +, Chris Mason wrote:
We're likely to have people mixing 4K drives and fill in some other
size here on the same box. We could just go with the biggest size and
use the existing bh code for the
On 01/22/2014 01:35 PM, James Bottomley wrote:
On Wed, 2014-01-22 at 13:17 -0500, Ric Wheeler wrote:
On 01/22/2014 01:13 PM, James Bottomley wrote:
On Wed, 2014-01-22 at 18:02 +, Chris Mason wrote:
On Wed, 2014-01-22 at 09:21 -0800, James Bottomley wrote:
On Wed, 2014-01-22 at 17:02
On Wed, 2014-01-22 at 18:37 +, Chris Mason wrote:
On Wed, 2014-01-22 at 10:13 -0800, James Bottomley wrote:
On Wed, 2014-01-22 at 18:02 +, Chris Mason wrote:
[agreement cut because it's boring for the reader]
Realistically, if you look at what the I/O schedulers output on a
standard
On Wed, 2014-01-22 at 13:39 -0500, Ric Wheeler wrote:
On 01/22/2014 01:35 PM, James Bottomley wrote:
On Wed, 2014-01-22 at 13:17 -0500, Ric Wheeler wrote:
[...]
I think that the key to having the file system work with larger
sectors is to
create them properly aligned and use the actual,
On 01/22/2014 01:37 PM, Chris Mason wrote:
Circling back to what we might talk about at the conference, Ric do you
have any ideas on when these drives might hit the wild?
-chris
I will poke at vendors to see if we can get someone to make a public statement,
but I cannot do that for them.
Ric
On Wed, 22 Jan 2014 11:30:19 -0800 James Bottomley
james.bottom...@hansenpartnership.com wrote:
But this, I think, is the fundamental point for debate. If we can pull
alignment and other tricks to solve 99% of the problem is there a need
for radical VM surgery? Is there anything coming down
On Wed, 2014-01-22 at 11:50 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Wed, 22 Jan 2014 11:30:19 -0800 James Bottomley
james.bottom...@hansenpartnership.com wrote:
But this, I think, is the fundamental point for debate. If we can pull
alignment and other tricks to solve 99% of the problem is there a
Ric == Ric Wheeler rwhee...@redhat.com writes:
Ric I will have to see if I can get a storage vendor to make a public
Ric statement, but there are vendors hoping to see this land in Linux
Ric in the next few years. I assume that anyone with a shipping device
Ric will have to at least emulate the
James == James Bottomley james.bottom...@hansenpartnership.com writes:
or even (not today, but some day) reject the IO.
James I really doubt this. All 4k drives today do RMW ... I don't see
James that changing any time soon.
All consumer grade 4K phys drives do RMW.
It's a different story
On Wed 22-01-14 09:00:33, James Bottomley wrote:
On Wed, 2014-01-22 at 11:45 -0500, Ric Wheeler wrote:
On 01/22/2014 11:03 AM, James Bottomley wrote:
On Wed, 2014-01-22 at 15:14 +, Chris Mason wrote:
On Wed, 2014-01-22 at 09:34 +, Mel Gorman wrote:
On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at
On Wed, 22 Jan 2014, Chris Mason wrote:
On Wed, 2014-01-22 at 11:50 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Wed, 22 Jan 2014 11:30:19 -0800 James Bottomley
james.bottom...@hansenpartnership.com wrote:
But this, I think, is the fundamental point for debate. If we can pull
alignment and other tricks
On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 06:46:11PM -0800, David Lang wrote:
It's extremely unlikely that drive manufacturers will produce drives
that won't work with any existing OS, so they are going to support
smaller writes in firmware. If they don't, they won't be able to
sell their drives to anyone
50 matches
Mail list logo
