Re: [PATCH v5 1/9] lib: zstd: Add zstd compatibility wrapper

On 10 Nov 2020, at 13:39, Christoph Hellwig wrote: On Mon, Nov 09, 2020 at 02:01:41PM -0500, Chris Mason wrote: You do consistently ask for a shim layer, but you haven???t explained what we gain by diverging from the documented and tested API of the upstream zstd project. It???s an important

Re: [PATCH v5 1/9] lib: zstd: Add zstd compatibility wrapper

On 6 Nov 2020, at 13:38, Christoph Hellwig wrote: You just keep resedning this crap, don't you? Haven't you been told multiple times to provide a proper kernel API by now? You do consistently ask for a shim layer, but you haven’t explained what we gain by diverging from the documented

Re: [PATCH] fix scheduler regression from "sched/fair: Rework load_balance()"

On 26 Oct 2020, at 12:20, Vincent Guittot wrote: Le lundi 26 oct. 2020 à 12:04:45 (-0400), Rik van Riel a écrit : On Mon, 26 Oct 2020 16:42:14 +0100 Vincent Guittot wrote: On Mon, 26 Oct 2020 at 16:04, Rik van Riel wrote: Could utilization estimates be off, either lagging or simply

Re: [PATCH] fix scheduler regression from "sched/fair: Rework load_balance()"

On 26 Oct 2020, at 11:05, Chris Mason wrote: On 26 Oct 2020, at 10:24, Vincent Guittot wrote: Could you try the fix below ? --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c @@ -9049,7 +9049,8 @@ static inline void calculate_imbalance(struct lb_env *env, struct sd_lb_stats *s

Re: [PATCH] fix scheduler regression from "sched/fair: Rework load_balance()"

On 26 Oct 2020, at 10:24, Vincent Guittot wrote: Le lundi 26 oct. 2020 à 08:45:27 (-0400), Chris Mason a écrit : On 26 Oct 2020, at 4:39, Vincent Guittot wrote: Hi Chris On Sat, 24 Oct 2020 at 01:49, Chris Mason wrote: Hi everyone, We’re validating a new kernel in the fleet

Re: [PATCH] fix scheduler regression from "sched/fair: Rework load_balance()"

On 26 Oct 2020, at 4:39, Vincent Guittot wrote: Hi Chris On Sat, 24 Oct 2020 at 01:49, Chris Mason wrote: Hi everyone, We’re validating a new kernel in the fleet, and compared with v5.2, Which version are you using ? several improvements have been added since v5.5 and the rework

[PATCH] fix scheduler regression from "sched/fair: Rework load_balance()"

Hi everyone, We’re validating a new kernel in the fleet, and compared with v5.2, performance is ~2-3% lower for some of our workloads. After some digging, Johannes found that our involuntary context switch rate was ~2x higher, and we were leaving a CPU idle a higher percentage of the time,

Re: [PATCH v4 0/9] Update to zstd-1.4.6

On 2 Oct 2020, at 2:54, Christoph Hellwig wrote: On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 08:05:45PM +, Nick Terrell wrote: On Sep 29, 2020, at 11:53 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: As you keep resend this I keep retelling you that should not do it. Please provide a proper Linux API, and switch to that.

Re: [PATCH 5/9] btrfs: zstd: Switch to the zstd-1.4.6 API

On 17 Sep 2020, at 6:04, Christoph Hellwig wrote: On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 09:35:51PM -0400, Rik van Riel wrote: One possibility is to have a kernel wrapper on top of the zstd API to make it more ergonomic. I personally don???t really see the value in it, since it adds another layer of

Re: [PATCH 5/9] btrfs: zstd: Switch to the zstd-1.4.6 API

On 16 Sep 2020, at 4:49, Christoph Hellwig wrote: On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 08:42:59PM -0700, Nick Terrell wrote: From: Nick Terrell Move away from the compatibility wrapper to the zstd-1.4.6 API. This code is functionally equivalent. Again, please use sensible names And no one gives a fuck

Re: [PATCH 5/9] btrfs: zstd: Switch to the zstd-1.4.6 API

On 16 Sep 2020, at 10:46, Christoph Hellwig wrote: On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 10:43:04AM -0400, Chris Mason wrote: Otherwise we just end up with drift and kernel-specific bugs that are harder to debug. To the extent those APIs make us contort the kernel code, I???m sure Nick is interested

Re: [PATCH 5/9] btrfs: zstd: Switch to the zstd-1.4.6 API

On 16 Sep 2020, at 10:30, Christoph Hellwig wrote: On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 10:20:52AM -0400, Chris Mason wrote: It???s not completely clear what you???re asking for here. If the API matches what???s in zstd-1.4.6, that seems like a reasonable way to label it. That???s what the upstream

Re: [PATCH] mm : fix pte _PAGE_DIRTY bit when fallback migrate page

_PAGE_RW, when the next mmap write occurs, we don't need to trigger the page_mkwrite again. I don’t know the page migration code well, but you’ll need this one as well on the 4.4 kernel you mentioned: commit 25f3c5021985e885292980d04a1423fd83c967bb Author: Chris Mason Date: Tue Jan 21 11

Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH] CodingStyle: Inclusive Terminology

On 6 Jul 2020, at 10:06, Laurent Pinchart wrote: Hi Chris, On Mon, Jul 06, 2020 at 12:45:34PM +, Chris Mason via Ksummit-discuss wrote: On 5 Jul 2020, at 0:55, Willy Tarreau wrote: Maybe instead of providing an explicit list of a few words it should simply say that terms that take

Re: [PATCH] CodingStyle: Inclusive Terminology

On 5 Jul 2020, at 0:55, Willy Tarreau wrote: > On Sat, Jul 04, 2020 at 01:02:51PM -0700, Dan Williams wrote: >> +Non-inclusive terminology has that same distracting effect which is >> why >> +it is a style issue for Linux, it injures developer efficiency. > > I'm personally thinking that for a

Re: [PATCH btrfs/for-next] btrfs: fix fatal extent_buffer readahead vs releasepage race

On 17 Jun 2020, at 13:20, Filipe Manana wrote: On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 5:32 PM Boris Burkov wrote: --- fs/btrfs/extent_io.c | 45 1 file changed, 29 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-) diff --git a/fs/btrfs/extent_io.c b/fs/btrfs/extent_io.c index

Re: [PATCH 10/12] btrfs: flag files as supporting buffered async reads

On 26 May 2020, at 15:51, Jens Axboe wrote: > btrfs uses generic_file_read_iter(), which already supports this. > > Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe Really looking forward to this! Acked-by: Chris Mason

Re: linux-next: cleanup the btrfs trees

On 19 Oct 2019, at 23:47, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi all, > > The btrfs tree > (git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mason/linux-btrfs.git#next) > has not bee updated in more than a year, so I have removed it and then > renamed the btrfs-kdave tree to btrfs. I hope this is OK and if

Re: linux-next: Signed-off-by missing for commits in the net-next tree

On 16 Aug 2019, at 5:15, Andy Grover wrote: > On 8/16/19 3:06 PM, Gerd Rausch wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Just added the e-mail addresses I found using a simple "google >> search", >> in order to reach out to the original authors of these commits: >&

Re: [RFC PATCH 00/11] bpf, trace, dtrace: DTrace BPF program type implementation and sample use

I'm being pretty liberal with chopping down quoted material to help emphasize a particular opinion about how to bootstrap existing out-of-tree projects into the kernel. My goal here is to talk more about the process and less about the technical details, so please forgive me if I've ignored

Re: [PATCH] fs,xfs: fix missed wakeup on l_flush_wait

h through all the related hung task timeouts, but they are probably all stuck in blkmq. Acked-but-I'm-still-blaming-Jens-by: Chris Mason -chris

Re: [PATCH 1/2] Revert "mm: don't reclaim inodes with many attached pages"

On 30 Jan 2019, at 20:34, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 12:21:07PM +0000, Chris Mason wrote: >> >> >> On 29 Jan 2019, at 23:17, Dave Chinner wrote: >> >>> From: Dave Chinner >>> >>> This reverts commit a76cf1a474d7dbcd9336b5

Re: [PATCH 1/2] Revert "mm: don't reclaim inodes with many attached pages"

On 29 Jan 2019, at 23:17, Dave Chinner wrote: > From: Dave Chinner > > This reverts commit a76cf1a474d7dbcd9336b5f5afb0162baa142cf0. > > This change causes serious changes to page cache and inode cache > behaviour and balance, resulting in major performance regressions > when combining

Re: [LKP] [lkp-robot] [brd] 316ba5736c: aim7.jobs-per-min -11.2% regression

On 18 Dec 2018, at 13:57, Jens Axboe wrote: > On 12/18/18 2:11 AM, kemi wrote: >> Hi, All >> Do we have special reason to keep this patch (316ba5736c9:brd: Mark >> as non-rotational). >> which leads to a performance regression when BRD is used as a disk on >> btrfs. > > I really suspect that

Linux Foundation Technical Advisory Board Elections -- Call for nominations

for nominations is right before voting begins, any statements must be received by Monday November 12th at 5PM Pacific, so that we have time to setup the slideshow. Current TAB members, and their election year: Chris Mason 2016 H. Peter Anvin 2016 Olof Johansson 2016 Rik van Riel2016 Dan Williams 2016

Linux Foundation Technical Advisory Board Elections -- Call for nominations

for nominations is right before voting begins, any statements must be received by Monday November 12th at 5PM Pacific, so that we have time to setup the slideshow. Current TAB members, and their election year: Chris Mason 2016 H. Peter Anvin 2016 Olof Johansson 2016 Rik van Riel2016 Dan Williams 2016

Linux Foundation Technical Advisory Board Elections -- Call for nominations

statements must be received by Monday November 12th at 5PM Pacific, so that we have time to setup the slideshow. Current TAB members, and their election year: Chris Mason 2016 H. Peter Anvin 2016 Olof Johansson 2016 Rik van Riel2016 Dan Williams 2016 Jon Corbet 2017 Greg Kroah-Hartman 2017 Steven

Linux Foundation Technical Advisory Board Elections -- Call for nominations

statements must be received by Monday November 12th at 5PM Pacific, so that we have time to setup the slideshow. Current TAB members, and their election year: Chris Mason 2016 H. Peter Anvin 2016 Olof Johansson 2016 Rik van Riel2016 Dan Williams 2016 Jon Corbet 2017 Greg Kroah-Hartman 2017 Steven

Re: [PATCH 2/2] code-of-conduct: Strip the enforcement paragraph pending community discussion

On 6 Oct 2018, at 17:37, James Bottomley wrote: Significant concern has been expressed about the responsibilities outlined in the enforcement clause of the new code of conduct. Since there is concern that this becomes binding on the release of the 4.19 kernel, strip the enforcement clauses

Re: [PATCH 2/2] code-of-conduct: Strip the enforcement paragraph pending community discussion

On 6 Oct 2018, at 17:37, James Bottomley wrote: Significant concern has been expressed about the responsibilities outlined in the enforcement clause of the new code of conduct. Since there is concern that this becomes binding on the release of the 4.19 kernel, strip the enforcement clauses

Re: [PATCH net-next] modules: allow modprobe load regular elf binaries

On 6 Mar 2018, at 11:12, Linus Torvalds wrote: On Mon, Mar 5, 2018 at 5:34 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: As the first step in development of bpfilter project [1] the request_module() code is extended to allow user mode helpers to be invoked. Idea is that user mode helpers

Re: [PATCH net-next] modules: allow modprobe load regular elf binaries

On 6 Mar 2018, at 11:12, Linus Torvalds wrote: On Mon, Mar 5, 2018 at 5:34 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: As the first step in development of bpfilter project [1] the request_module() code is extended to allow user mode helpers to be invoked. Idea is that user mode helpers are built as part

Re: [PATCHSET v2] cgroup, writeback, btrfs: make sure btrfs issues metadata IOs from the root cgroup

On 11/30/2017 12:23 PM, David Sterba wrote: On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 01:38:26PM -0500, Chris Mason wrote: On 11/29/2017 12:05 PM, Tejun Heo wrote: On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 09:03:30AM -0800, Tejun Heo wrote: Hello, On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 05:56:08PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote: What has happened

Re: [PATCHSET v2] cgroup, writeback, btrfs: make sure btrfs issues metadata IOs from the root cgroup

On 11/30/2017 12:23 PM, David Sterba wrote: On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 01:38:26PM -0500, Chris Mason wrote: On 11/29/2017 12:05 PM, Tejun Heo wrote: On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 09:03:30AM -0800, Tejun Heo wrote: Hello, On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 05:56:08PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote: What has happened

Re: [PATCHSET v2] cgroup, writeback, btrfs: make sure btrfs issues metadata IOs from the root cgroup

On 11/29/2017 12:05 PM, Tejun Heo wrote: On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 09:03:30AM -0800, Tejun Heo wrote: Hello, On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 05:56:08PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote: What has happened with this patch set? No idea. cc'ing Chris directly. Chris, if the patchset looks good, can you please

Re: [PATCHSET v2] cgroup, writeback, btrfs: make sure btrfs issues metadata IOs from the root cgroup

On 11/29/2017 12:05 PM, Tejun Heo wrote: On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 09:03:30AM -0800, Tejun Heo wrote: Hello, On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 05:56:08PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote: What has happened with this patch set? No idea. cc'ing Chris directly. Chris, if the patchset looks good, can you please

Reminder v2: Linux Foundation Technical Advisory Board Elections -- Call for nominations

://goo.gl/ADVFtT The deadline for receiving nominations is up until the beginning of the election event. Any statements for the online document need to be sent by Monday Oct 23rd. Please get your nomination in early so everyone has a chance to review the nominations before voting. Chris Mason, TAB

Reminder v2: Linux Foundation Technical Advisory Board Elections -- Call for nominations

://goo.gl/ADVFtT The deadline for receiving nominations is up until the beginning of the election event. Any statements for the online document need to be sent by Monday Oct 23rd. Please get your nomination in early so everyone has a chance to review the nominations before voting. Chris Mason, TAB

Reminder: Linux Foundation Technical Advisory Board Elections -- Call for nominations

/ADVFtT The deadline for receiving nominations is up until the beginning of the election event. Any statements for the online document need to be sent by Monday Oct 23rd. Please get your nomination in early so everyone has a chance to review the nominations before voting. Chris Mason, TAB Chair [1

Reminder: Linux Foundation Technical Advisory Board Elections -- Call for nominations

/ADVFtT The deadline for receiving nominations is up until the beginning of the election event. Any statements for the online document need to be sent by Monday Oct 23rd. Please get your nomination in early so everyone has a chance to review the nominations before voting. Chris Mason, TAB Chair [1

Linux Foundation Technical Advisory Board Elections -- Call for nominations

before voting. Chris Mason, TAB Chair [1] TAB members sit for a term of two years, and half of the board is up for election every year. Five of the seats are up for election now. The other five are halfway through their term and will be up for election next year.

Linux Foundation Technical Advisory Board Elections -- Call for nominations

before voting. Chris Mason, TAB Chair [1] TAB members sit for a term of two years, and half of the board is up for election every year. Five of the seats are up for election now. The other five are halfway through their term and will be up for election next year.

Linux Foundation Technical Advisory Board Elections -- Call for nominations

before voting. Chris Mason, TAB Chair [1] TAB members sit for a term of two years, and half of the board is up for election every year. Five of the seats are up for election now. The other five are halfway through their term and will be up for election next year.

Linux Foundation Technical Advisory Board Elections -- Call for nominations

before voting. Chris Mason, TAB Chair [1] TAB members sit for a term of two years, and half of the board is up for election every year. Five of the seats are up for election now. The other five are halfway through their term and will be up for election next year.

[GIT PULL v2] zstd support (lib, btrfs, squashfs, nocrypto)

Hi Linus, Nick Terrell's patch series to add zstd support to the kernel has been floating around for a while. After talking with Dave Sterba, Herbert and Phillip, we decided to send the whole thing in as one pull request. Herbert had asked about the crypto patch when we discussed the pull, but

[GIT PULL v2] zstd support (lib, btrfs, squashfs, nocrypto)

Hi Linus, Nick Terrell's patch series to add zstd support to the kernel has been floating around for a while. After talking with Dave Sterba, Herbert and Phillip, we decided to send the whole thing in as one pull request. Herbert had asked about the crypto patch when we discussed the pull, but

Re: [GIT PULL] zstd support (lib, btrfs, squashfs)

On Sat, Sep 09, 2017 at 09:35:59AM +0800, Herbert Xu wrote: On Fri, Sep 08, 2017 at 03:33:05PM -0400, Chris Mason wrote: crypto/Kconfig |9 + crypto/Makefile|1 + crypto/testmgr.c | 10 + crypto/testmgr.h | 71 + crypto/zstd.c

Re: [GIT PULL] zstd support (lib, btrfs, squashfs)

On Sat, Sep 09, 2017 at 09:35:59AM +0800, Herbert Xu wrote: On Fri, Sep 08, 2017 at 03:33:05PM -0400, Chris Mason wrote: crypto/Kconfig |9 + crypto/Makefile|1 + crypto/testmgr.c | 10 + crypto/testmgr.h | 71 + crypto/zstd.c

Re: [GIT PULL] zstd support (lib, btrfs, squashfs)

On 09/08/2017 03:33 PM, Chris Mason wrote: Hi Linus, Nick Terrell's patch series to add zstd support to the kernel has been floating around for a while. After talking with Dave Sterba, Herbert and Phillip, we decided to send the whole thing in as one pull request. I have it in my zstd

Re: [GIT PULL] zstd support (lib, btrfs, squashfs)

On 09/08/2017 03:33 PM, Chris Mason wrote: Hi Linus, Nick Terrell's patch series to add zstd support to the kernel has been floating around for a while. After talking with Dave Sterba, Herbert and Phillip, we decided to send the whole thing in as one pull request. I have it in my zstd

[GIT PULL] zstd support (lib, btrfs, squashfs)

Hi Linus, Nick Terrell's patch series to add zstd support to the kernel has been floating around for a while. After talking with Dave Sterba, Herbert and Phillip, we decided to send the whole thing in as one pull request. I have it in my zstd branch:

[GIT PULL] zstd support (lib, btrfs, squashfs)

Hi Linus, Nick Terrell's patch series to add zstd support to the kernel has been floating around for a while. After talking with Dave Sterba, Herbert and Phillip, we decided to send the whole thing in as one pull request. I have it in my zstd branch:

Re: [PATCH v5 2/5] lib: Add zstd modules

On 08/10/2017 03:25 PM, Hugo Mills wrote: On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 01:41:21PM -0400, Chris Mason wrote: On 08/10/2017 04:30 AM, Eric Biggers wrote: Theses benchmarks are misleading because they compress the whole file as a single stream without resetting the dictionary, which isn't how data

Re: [PATCH v5 2/5] lib: Add zstd modules

On 08/10/2017 03:25 PM, Hugo Mills wrote: On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 01:41:21PM -0400, Chris Mason wrote: On 08/10/2017 04:30 AM, Eric Biggers wrote: Theses benchmarks are misleading because they compress the whole file as a single stream without resetting the dictionary, which isn't how data

Re: [PATCH v5 2/5] lib: Add zstd modules

On 08/10/2017 03:00 PM, Eric Biggers wrote: On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 01:41:21PM -0400, Chris Mason wrote: On 08/10/2017 04:30 AM, Eric Biggers wrote: On Wed, Aug 09, 2017 at 07:35:53PM -0700, Nick Terrell wrote: The memory reported is the amount of memory the compressor requests. | Method

Re: [PATCH v5 2/5] lib: Add zstd modules

On 08/10/2017 03:00 PM, Eric Biggers wrote: On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 01:41:21PM -0400, Chris Mason wrote: On 08/10/2017 04:30 AM, Eric Biggers wrote: On Wed, Aug 09, 2017 at 07:35:53PM -0700, Nick Terrell wrote: The memory reported is the amount of memory the compressor requests. | Method

Re: [PATCH v5 2/5] lib: Add zstd modules

On 08/10/2017 04:30 AM, Eric Biggers wrote: On Wed, Aug 09, 2017 at 07:35:53PM -0700, Nick Terrell wrote: The memory reported is the amount of memory the compressor requests. | Method | Size (B) | Time (s) | Ratio | MB/s| Adj MB/s | Mem (MB) |

Re: [PATCH v5 2/5] lib: Add zstd modules

On 08/10/2017 04:30 AM, Eric Biggers wrote: On Wed, Aug 09, 2017 at 07:35:53PM -0700, Nick Terrell wrote: The memory reported is the amount of memory the compressor requests. | Method | Size (B) | Time (s) | Ratio | MB/s| Adj MB/s | Mem (MB) |

Re: Moving ndctl development into the kernel tree?

On 07/22/2017 02:49 PM, Dan Williams wrote: On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 7:52 PM, Dan Williams wrote: [ adding Chris ] On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 4:44 PM, Dan Williams wrote: On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 3:58 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:

Re: Moving ndctl development into the kernel tree?

On 07/22/2017 02:49 PM, Dan Williams wrote: On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 7:52 PM, Dan Williams wrote: [ adding Chris ] On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 4:44 PM, Dan Williams wrote: On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 3:58 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote: * Dan Williams wrote: [...] * Like perf, ndctl borrows the

[GIT PULL] Btrfs

Hi Linus, My for-linus-4.12 branch has some fixes that Dave Sterba collected: git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mason/linux-btrfs.git for-linus-4.12 We've been hitting an early enospc problem on production machines that Omar tracked down to an old int->u64 mistake. I waited a bit

[GIT PULL] Btrfs

Hi Linus, My for-linus-4.12 branch has some fixes that Dave Sterba collected: git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mason/linux-btrfs.git for-linus-4.12 We've been hitting an early enospc problem on production machines that Omar tracked down to an old int->u64 mistake. I waited a bit

Re: hackbench vs select_idle_sibling; was: [tip:sched/core] sched/fair, cpumask: Export for_each_cpu_wrap()

On 06/06/2017 05:21 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: On Mon, Jun 05, 2017 at 02:00:21PM +0100, Matt Fleming wrote: On Fri, 19 May, at 04:00:35PM, Matt Fleming wrote: On Wed, 17 May, at 12:53:50PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: Please test.. Results are still coming in but things do look better with your

Re: hackbench vs select_idle_sibling; was: [tip:sched/core] sched/fair, cpumask: Export for_each_cpu_wrap()

On 06/06/2017 05:21 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: On Mon, Jun 05, 2017 at 02:00:21PM +0100, Matt Fleming wrote: On Fri, 19 May, at 04:00:35PM, Matt Fleming wrote: On Wed, 17 May, at 12:53:50PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: Please test.. Results are still coming in but things do look better with your

Re: hackbench vs select_idle_sibling; was: [tip:sched/core] sched/fair, cpumask: Export for_each_cpu_wrap()

On 05/17/2017 06:53 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 02:03:11AM -0700, tip-bot for Peter Zijlstra wrote: sched/fair, cpumask: Export for_each_cpu_wrap() -static int cpumask_next_wrap(int n, const struct cpumask *mask, int start, int *wrapped) -{ - next =

Re: hackbench vs select_idle_sibling; was: [tip:sched/core] sched/fair, cpumask: Export for_each_cpu_wrap()

On 05/17/2017 06:53 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 02:03:11AM -0700, tip-bot for Peter Zijlstra wrote: sched/fair, cpumask: Export for_each_cpu_wrap() -static int cpumask_next_wrap(int n, const struct cpumask *mask, int start, int *wrapped) -{ - next =

Re: [GIT PULL] Btrfs

On 05/09/2017 01:56 PM, Chris Mason wrote: > Hi Linus, > > My for-linus-4.12 branch: > > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mason/linux-btrfs.git > for-linus-4.12 I hit send too soon, sorry. There's a trivial conflict with our WARN_ON fix that went in

Re: [GIT PULL] Btrfs

On 05/09/2017 01:56 PM, Chris Mason wrote: > Hi Linus, > > My for-linus-4.12 branch: > > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mason/linux-btrfs.git > for-linus-4.12 I hit send too soon, sorry. There's a trivial conflict with our WARN_ON fix that went in

[GIT PULL] Btrfs

) btrfs: No need to check !(flags & MS_RDONLY) twice (+1/-2) Chris Mason (1) commits (+2/-2): btrfs: fix the gfp_mask for the reada_zones radix tree Adam Borowski (1) commits (+9/-3): btrfs: fix a bogus warning when converting only data or metadata Deepa Dinamani (1) commits (+

[GIT PULL] Btrfs

) btrfs: No need to check !(flags & MS_RDONLY) twice (+1/-2) Chris Mason (1) commits (+2/-2): btrfs: fix the gfp_mask for the reada_zones radix tree Adam Borowski (1) commits (+9/-3): btrfs: fix a bogus warning when converting only data or metadata Deepa Dinamani (1) commits (+

Re: [PATCH] btrfs: always write superblocks synchronously

On 05/03/2017 04:36 AM, Jan Kara wrote: On Tue 02-05-17 09:28:13, Davidlohr Bueso wrote: Commit b685d3d65ac7 "block: treat REQ_FUA and REQ_PREFLUSH as synchronous" removed REQ_SYNC flag from WRITE_FUA implementation. Since REQ_FUA and REQ_FLUSH flags are stripped from submitted IO when the

Re: [PATCH] btrfs: always write superblocks synchronously

On 05/03/2017 04:36 AM, Jan Kara wrote: On Tue 02-05-17 09:28:13, Davidlohr Bueso wrote: Commit b685d3d65ac7 "block: treat REQ_FUA and REQ_PREFLUSH as synchronous" removed REQ_SYNC flag from WRITE_FUA implementation. Since REQ_FUA and REQ_FLUSH flags are stripped from submitted IO when the

[GIT PULL] Btrfs

Hi Linus, We have one more for btrfs: git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mason/linux-btrfs.git for-linus-4.11 This is dropping a new WARN_ON from rc1 that ended up making more noise than we really want. The larger fix for the underflow got delayed a bit and it's better for now

[GIT PULL] Btrfs

Hi Linus, We have one more for btrfs: git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mason/linux-btrfs.git for-linus-4.11 This is dropping a new WARN_ON from rc1 that ended up making more noise than we really want. The larger fix for the underflow got delayed a bit and it's better for now

Re: [PATCH 2/2] sched/fair: Always propagate runnable_load_avg

On 04/25/2017 04:49 PM, Tejun Heo wrote: On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 11:49:41AM -0700, Tejun Heo wrote: Will try that too. I can't see why HT would change it because I see single CPU queues misevaluated. Just in case, you need to tune the test params so that it doesn't load the machine too much

Re: [PATCH 2/2] sched/fair: Always propagate runnable_load_avg

On 04/25/2017 04:49 PM, Tejun Heo wrote: On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 11:49:41AM -0700, Tejun Heo wrote: Will try that too. I can't see why HT would change it because I see single CPU queues misevaluated. Just in case, you need to tune the test params so that it doesn't load the machine too much

[GIT PULL] Btrfs

Hi Linus Dave Sterba collected a few more fixes for the last rc: git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mason/linux-btrfs.git for-linus-4.11 These aren't marked for stable, but I'm putting them in with a batch were testing/sending by hand for this release. Liu Bo (3) commits

[GIT PULL] Btrfs

Hi Linus Dave Sterba collected a few more fixes for the last rc: git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mason/linux-btrfs.git for-linus-4.11 These aren't marked for stable, but I'm putting them in with a batch were testing/sending by hand for this release. Liu Bo (3) commits

[GIT PULL] Btrfs

Hi Linus, We have 3 small fixes queued up in my for-linus-4.11 branch: git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mason/linux-btrfs.git for-linus-4.11 Goldwyn Rodrigues (1) commits (+7/-7): btrfs: Change qgroup_meta_rsv to 64bit Dan Carpenter (1) commits (+6/-1): Btrfs: fix an

[GIT PULL] Btrfs

Hi Linus, We have 3 small fixes queued up in my for-linus-4.11 branch: git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mason/linux-btrfs.git for-linus-4.11 Goldwyn Rodrigues (1) commits (+7/-7): btrfs: Change qgroup_meta_rsv to 64bit Dan Carpenter (1) commits (+6/-1): Btrfs: fix an

[GIT PULL] Btrfs

Hi Linus We have a small set of fixes for the next RC: git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mason/linux-btrfs.git for-linus-4.11 Zygo tracked down a very old bug with inline compressed extents. I didn't tag this one for stable because I want to do individual tested backports. It's

[GIT PULL] Btrfs

Hi Linus We have a small set of fixes for the next RC: git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mason/linux-btrfs.git for-linus-4.11 Zygo tracked down a very old bug with inline compressed extents. I didn't tag this one for stable because I want to do individual tested backports. It's

Re: [PATCH] jump_label: Fix anonymous union initialization

ough, jump labels are not for 4.4". Although, didn't goto asm get added into 4.5? Did someone backport it to the gcc 4.4 compilers? I believe 4.5 handles anonymous unions. Since the broken commit went through my tree, I'll take this patch. I'm getting ready for another git pull request to

Re: [PATCH] jump_label: Fix anonymous union initialization

nto 4.5? Did someone backport it to the gcc 4.4 compilers? I believe 4.5 handles anonymous unions. Since the broken commit went through my tree, I'll take this patch. I'm getting ready for another git pull request to Linus. Compiled-by: Chris Mason -chris

[GIT PULL] Btrfs

Hi Linus, My for-linus-4.11 branch: git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mason/linux-btrfs.git for-linus-4.11 Has Btrfs round two. These are mostly a continuation of Dave Sterba's collection of cleanups, but Filipe also has some bug fixes and performance improvements. Nikolay

[GIT PULL] Btrfs

Hi Linus, My for-linus-4.11 branch: git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mason/linux-btrfs.git for-linus-4.11 Has Btrfs round two. These are mostly a continuation of Dave Sterba's collection of cleanups, but Filipe also has some bug fixes and performance improvements. Nikolay

[GIT PULL] Btrfs

Hi Linus, My for-linus-4.11 branch: git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mason/linux-btrfs.git for-linus-4.11 Has a series of fixes and cleanups that Dave Sterba has been collecting: There is a pretty big variety here, cleaning up internal APIs and fixing corner cases. David Sterba

[GIT PULL] Btrfs

Hi Linus, My for-linus-4.11 branch: git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mason/linux-btrfs.git for-linus-4.11 Has a series of fixes and cleanups that Dave Sterba has been collecting: There is a pretty big variety here, cleaning up internal APIs and fixing corner cases. David Sterba

[GIT PULL] Btrfs

Hi Linus, My for-linus-4.10 branch: git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mason/linux-btrfs.git for-linus-4.10 Has two last minute fixes. The highest priority here is a regression fix for the decompression code, but we also fixed up a problem with the 32 bit compat ioctls. The

[GIT PULL] Btrfs

Hi Linus, My for-linus-4.10 branch: git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mason/linux-btrfs.git for-linus-4.10 Has two last minute fixes. The highest priority here is a regression fix for the decompression code, but we also fixed up a problem with the 32 bit compat ioctls. The

[GIT PULL] Btrfs

Hi Linus, My for-linus-4.10 branch: git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mason/linux-btrfs.git for-linus-4.10 Has some fixes that we've collected from the list. We still have one more pending to nail down a regression in lzo compression, but I wanted to get this batch out the door.

[GIT PULL] Btrfs

Hi Linus, My for-linus-4.10 branch: git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mason/linux-btrfs.git for-linus-4.10 Has some fixes that we've collected from the list. We still have one more pending to nail down a regression in lzo compression, but I wanted to get this batch out the door.

[GIT PULL] Btrfs fixes

Hi Linus, Dave Sterba queued up a few fixes for btrfs. I have them in my for-linus-4.10 branch: These are all over the place. The tracepoint part of the pull fixes a crash and adds a little more information to two tracepoints, while the rest are good old fashioned fixes.

[GIT PULL] Btrfs fixes

Hi Linus, Dave Sterba queued up a few fixes for btrfs. I have them in my for-linus-4.10 branch: These are all over the place. The tracepoint part of the pull fixes a crash and adds a little more information to two tracepoints, while the rest are good old fashioned fixes.

Re: [Regression 4.7-rc1] btrfs: bugfix: handle FS_IOC32_{GETFLAGS,SETFLAGS,GETVERSION} in btrfs_ioctl

On 01/06/2017 12:22 PM, Joseph Salisbury wrote: Hi Luke, A kernel bug report was opened against Ubuntu [0]. This bug was fixed by the following commit in v4.7-rc1: commit 4c63c2454eff996c5e27991221106eb511f7db38 Author: Luke Dashjr Date: Thu Oct 29 08:22:21 2015 +

Re: [Regression 4.7-rc1] btrfs: bugfix: handle FS_IOC32_{GETFLAGS,SETFLAGS,GETVERSION} in btrfs_ioctl

On 01/06/2017 12:22 PM, Joseph Salisbury wrote: Hi Luke, A kernel bug report was opened against Ubuntu [0]. This bug was fixed by the following commit in v4.7-rc1: commit 4c63c2454eff996c5e27991221106eb511f7db38 Author: Luke Dashjr Date: Thu Oct 29 08:22:21 2015 + btrfs: bugfix:

Re: OOM: Better, but still there on

On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 12:16:53PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: On Wed 21-12-16 20:00:38, Tetsuo Handa wrote: One thing to note here, when we are talking about 32b kernel, things have changed in 4.8 when we moved from the zone based to node based reclaim (see b2e18757f2c9 ("mm, vmscan: begin

Re: OOM: Better, but still there on

On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 12:16:53PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: On Wed 21-12-16 20:00:38, Tetsuo Handa wrote: One thing to note here, when we are talking about 32b kernel, things have changed in 4.8 when we moved from the zone based to node based reclaim (see b2e18757f2c9 ("mm, vmscan: begin

Re: OOM: Better, but still there on 4.9

On 12/16/2016 05:14 PM, Michal Hocko wrote: On Fri 16-12-16 13:15:18, Chris Mason wrote: On 12/16/2016 02:39 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: [...] I believe the right way to go around this is to pursue what I've started in [1]. I will try to prepare something for testing today for you. Stay tuned

Re: OOM: Better, but still there on 4.9

On 12/16/2016 05:14 PM, Michal Hocko wrote: On Fri 16-12-16 13:15:18, Chris Mason wrote: On 12/16/2016 02:39 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: [...] I believe the right way to go around this is to pursue what I've started in [1]. I will try to prepare something for testing today for you. Stay tuned

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >