Re: [PATCH v2 4/7] blk-mq: Introduce blk_quiesce_queue() and blk_resume_queue()

On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 12:16 PM, Bart Van Assche wrote: > On 10/01/16 15:56, Ming Lei wrote: >> >> If we just call the rcu/srcu read lock(or the mutex) around .queue_rq(), >> the >> above code needn't to be duplicated any more. > > > Hello Ming, > > Can you have a look

Re: [PATCH] blk-mq: Return invalid cookie if bio was split

On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 6:00 AM, Keith Busch wrote: > On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 05:25:36PM +0800, Ming Lei wrote: >> On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 19:00:30 -0400 >> Keith Busch wrote: >> >> > The only user of polling requires its original request be completed in

Re: [PATCH 2/3] zram: support page-based parallel write

Hi Sergey, On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 01:43:14PM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote: < snip > > TEST > > > new tests results; same tests, same conditions, same .config. > 4-way test: > - BASE zram, fio direct=1 > - BASE zram, fio fsync_on_close=1 > - NEW zram, fio direct=1 > - NEW zram, fio

Re: [PATCH 1/3] block: Add iocontext priority to request

Hello, Adam. On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 08:49:18AM -0700, Adam Manzanares wrote: > > I wonder whether the right thing to do is adding bio->bi_ioprio which > > is initialized on bio submission and carried through req->ioprio. > > I looked around and thought about this and I'm not sure if this will

Re: [PATCH V3 00/11] block-throttle: add .high limit

Hello, Paolo. On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 09:29:48PM +0200, Paolo Valente wrote: > > Hmm... I think we already discussed this but here's a really simple > > case. There are three unknown workloads A, B and C and we want to > > give A certain best-effort guarantees (let's say around 80% of the > >

Re: [PATCH V3 00/11] block-throttle: add .high limit

> Il giorno 04 ott 2016, alle ore 21:14, Tejun Heo ha scritto: > > Hello, Paolo. > > On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 09:02:47PM +0200, Paolo Valente wrote: >> That's exactly what BFQ has succeeded in doing in all the tests >> devised so far. Can you give me a concrete example for

Re: [PATCH V3 00/11] block-throttle: add .high limit

Hello, Paolo. On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 09:02:47PM +0200, Paolo Valente wrote: > That's exactly what BFQ has succeeded in doing in all the tests > devised so far. Can you give me a concrete example for which I can > try with BFQ and with any other mechanism you deem better. If > you are right,

Re: [PATCH V3 00/11] block-throttle: add .high limit

> Il giorno 04 ott 2016, alle ore 17:56, Tejun Heo ha scritto: > > Hello, Vivek. > > On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 09:28:05AM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote: >> On Mon, Oct 03, 2016 at 02:20:19PM -0700, Shaohua Li wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> The background is we don't have an ioscheduler for

Re: [PATCH V3 00/11] block-throttle: add .high limit

Hello, Vivek. On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 09:28:05AM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote: > On Mon, Oct 03, 2016 at 02:20:19PM -0700, Shaohua Li wrote: > > Hi, > > > > The background is we don't have an ioscheduler for blk-mq yet, so we can't > > prioritize processes/cgroups. > > So this is an interim

Re: [PATCH 1/3] block: Add iocontext priority to request

Hello Tejun, 10/02/2016 10:53, Tejun Heo wrote: > Hello, Adam. > > On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 09:02:17AM -0700, Adam Manzanares wrote: > > I'll start with the changes I made and work my way through a grep of > > > > ioprio. Please add or correct any of the assumptions I have made.

Re: [PATCH V3 00/11] block-throttle: add .high limit

On Mon, Oct 03, 2016 at 02:20:19PM -0700, Shaohua Li wrote: > Hi, > > The background is we don't have an ioscheduler for blk-mq yet, so we can't > prioritize processes/cgroups. So this is an interim solution till we have ioscheduler for blk-mq? > This patch set tries to add basic arbitration >

Re: [Nbd] [PATCH][V3] nbd: add multi-connection support

Wouter, >>> It is impossible for nbd to make such a guarantee, due to head-of-line >>> blocking on TCP. >> >> this is perfectly accurate as far as it goes, but this isn't the current >> NBD definition of 'flush'. > > I didn't read it that way. > >> That is (from the docs): >> >>> All write

Re: [PATCH 2/3] zram: support page-based parallel write

Hi Sergey, On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 01:43:14PM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote: > Hello, > > Cc Jens and block-dev, > > I'll outline the commit message for Jens and blockdev people, may be > someone will have some thoughts/ideas/opinions: Thanks for Ccing relevant poeple. Even, I didn't know we