On 07/17/2015 09:02 AM, Andrey Kuzmin wrote:
On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 5:58 PM, Jens Axboe <[email protected]> wrote:
On 07/17/2015 08:53 AM, Andrey Kuzmin wrote:
On Jul 17, 2015 5:36 PM, "Jens Axboe" <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>
> On 07/17/2015 08:30 AM, Andrey Kuzmin wrote:
>>
>> Probably worth adding to do_verify() as well.
>
>
> Might be better to ensure that they are reaped when we break out of
the loop instead?
>
That's exactly what happens with the patch, doesn't it?
It might be... It's not very clear why a !td->cur_depth should force us to
stay in the loop?
Because to me breaking out of the loop on time- or size-based limit
exceeded condition with a non-zero td->cur_depth means loosing
completions.
That's what I thought. Hence my suggestion would be that we reap any
potentially inflight IO _outside_ of the loop, that would be a lot cleaner.
--
Jens Axboe
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe fio" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
