On Friday 31 August 2007 14:41, Alasdair G Kergon wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 30, 2007 at 04:20:35PM -0700, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> > Resubmitting a bio or submitting a dependent bio from
> > inside a block driver does not need to be throttled because all
> > resources required to guarantee completion
On Friday 31 August 2007 14:41, Alasdair G Kergon wrote:
On Thu, Aug 30, 2007 at 04:20:35PM -0700, Daniel Phillips wrote:
Resubmitting a bio or submitting a dependent bio from
inside a block driver does not need to be throttled because all
resources required to guarantee completion must
On Thu, Aug 30, 2007 at 04:20:35PM -0700, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> Resubmitting a bio or submitting a dependent bio from
> inside a block driver does not need to be throttled because all
> resources required to guarantee completion must have been obtained
> _before_ the bio was allowed to
Hi Daniel.
On Thu, Aug 30, 2007 at 04:20:35PM -0700, Daniel Phillips ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
> On Wednesday 29 August 2007 01:53, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
> > Then, if of course you will want, which I doubt, you can reread
> > previous mails and find that it was pointed to that race and
> >
Hi Daniel.
On Thu, Aug 30, 2007 at 04:20:35PM -0700, Daniel Phillips ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
On Wednesday 29 August 2007 01:53, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
Then, if of course you will want, which I doubt, you can reread
previous mails and find that it was pointed to that race and
On Thu, Aug 30, 2007 at 04:20:35PM -0700, Daniel Phillips wrote:
Resubmitting a bio or submitting a dependent bio from
inside a block driver does not need to be throttled because all
resources required to guarantee completion must have been obtained
_before_ the bio was allowed to proceed
On Wednesday 29 August 2007 01:53, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
> Then, if of course you will want, which I doubt, you can reread
> previous mails and find that it was pointed to that race and
> possibilities to solve it way too long ago.
What still bothers me about your response is that, while you
On Wednesday 29 August 2007 01:53, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
Then, if of course you will want, which I doubt, you can reread
previous mails and find that it was pointed to that race and
possibilities to solve it way too long ago.
What still bothers me about your response is that, while you know
On Tue, Aug 28, 2007 at 02:08:04PM -0700, Daniel Phillips ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
> On Tuesday 28 August 2007 10:54, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 28, 2007 at 10:27:59AM -0700, Daniel Phillips ([EMAIL
> > PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > > > We do not care about one cpu being able to increase
On Tue, Aug 28, 2007 at 02:08:04PM -0700, Daniel Phillips ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
On Tuesday 28 August 2007 10:54, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
On Tue, Aug 28, 2007 at 10:27:59AM -0700, Daniel Phillips ([EMAIL
PROTECTED]) wrote:
We do not care about one cpu being able to increase its
On Tuesday 28 August 2007 10:54, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 28, 2007 at 10:27:59AM -0700, Daniel Phillips ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
> wrote:
> > > We do not care about one cpu being able to increase its counter
> > > higher than the limit, such inaccuracy (maximum bios in flight
> > > thus
On Tue, Aug 28, 2007 at 10:27:59AM -0700, Daniel Phillips ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
> > We do not care about one cpu being able to increase its counter
> > higher than the limit, such inaccuracy (maximum bios in flight thus
> > can be more than limit, difference is equal to the number of CPUs -
On Tuesday 28 August 2007 02:35, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 27, 2007 at 02:57:37PM -0700, Daniel Phillips
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > Say Evgeniy, something I was curious about but forgot to ask you
> > earlier...
> >
> > On Wednesday 08 August 2007 03:17, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
>
On Mon, Aug 27, 2007 at 02:57:37PM -0700, Daniel Phillips ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
> Say Evgeniy, something I was curious about but forgot to ask you
> earlier...
>
> On Wednesday 08 August 2007 03:17, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
> > ...All oerations are not atomic, since we do not care about
On Mon, Aug 27, 2007 at 02:57:37PM -0700, Daniel Phillips ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
Say Evgeniy, something I was curious about but forgot to ask you
earlier...
On Wednesday 08 August 2007 03:17, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
...All oerations are not atomic, since we do not care about precise
On Tue, Aug 28, 2007 at 10:27:59AM -0700, Daniel Phillips ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
We do not care about one cpu being able to increase its counter
higher than the limit, such inaccuracy (maximum bios in flight thus
can be more than limit, difference is equal to the number of CPUs -
1)
On Tuesday 28 August 2007 02:35, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
On Mon, Aug 27, 2007 at 02:57:37PM -0700, Daniel Phillips
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Say Evgeniy, something I was curious about but forgot to ask you
earlier...
On Wednesday 08 August 2007 03:17, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
...All
On Tuesday 28 August 2007 10:54, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
On Tue, Aug 28, 2007 at 10:27:59AM -0700, Daniel Phillips ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
We do not care about one cpu being able to increase its counter
higher than the limit, such inaccuracy (maximum bios in flight
thus can be more
Say Evgeniy, something I was curious about but forgot to ask you
earlier...
On Wednesday 08 August 2007 03:17, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
> ...All oerations are not atomic, since we do not care about precise
> number of bios, but a fact, that we are close or close enough to the
> limit.
> ... in
Say Evgeniy, something I was curious about but forgot to ask you
earlier...
On Wednesday 08 August 2007 03:17, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
...All oerations are not atomic, since we do not care about precise
number of bios, but a fact, that we are close or close enough to the
limit.
... in
Hi Daniel.
On Sun, Aug 12, 2007 at 04:16:10PM -0700, Daniel Phillips ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
> Your patch is close to the truth, but it needs to throttle at the top
> (virtual) end of each block device stack instead of the bottom
> (physical) end. It does head in the direction of
Hi Daniel.
On Sun, Aug 12, 2007 at 04:16:10PM -0700, Daniel Phillips ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
Your patch is close to the truth, but it needs to throttle at the top
(virtual) end of each block device stack instead of the bottom
(physical) end. It does head in the direction of eliminating
Hi Evgeniy,
Sorry for not getting back to you right away, I was on the road with
limited email access. Incidentally, the reason my mails to you keep
bouncing is, your MTA is picky about my mailer's IP reversing to a real
hostname. I will take care of that pretty soon, but for now my direct
Hi Evgeniy,
Sorry for not getting back to you right away, I was on the road with
limited email access. Incidentally, the reason my mails to you keep
bouncing is, your MTA is picky about my mailer's IP reversing to a real
hostname. I will take care of that pretty soon, but for now my direct
On Wed, Aug 08, 2007 at 02:17:09PM +0400, Evgeniy Polyakov ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
> This throttling mechanism allows to limit maximum amount of queued bios
> per physical device. By default it is turned off and old block layer
> behaviour with unlimited number of bios is used. When turned
This throttling mechanism allows to limit maximum amount of queued bios
per physical device. By default it is turned off and old block layer
behaviour with unlimited number of bios is used. When turned on (queue
limit is set to something different than -1U via blk_set_queue_limit()),
This throttling mechanism allows to limit maximum amount of queued bios
per physical device. By default it is turned off and old block layer
behaviour with unlimited number of bios is used. When turned on (queue
limit is set to something different than -1U via blk_set_queue_limit()),
On Wed, Aug 08, 2007 at 02:17:09PM +0400, Evgeniy Polyakov ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
This throttling mechanism allows to limit maximum amount of queued bios
per physical device. By default it is turned off and old block layer
behaviour with unlimited number of bios is used. When turned on
28 matches
Mail list logo
