Re: blockdev kernel regression (bugzilla 173031)

On Wed, Oct 05 2016, Francesco Dolcini wrote: > Hi all, > Adding linux-block in CC for this bug report. > > > On Wed, Oct 05, 2016 at 01:00:57PM +1100, NeilBrown wrote: >> On Wed, Oct 05 2016, Francesco Dolcini wrote: >> > Hi all, >> > moving from kernel 3.14 to kernel 4.1 I had a kernel

[PATCH v7 1/7] block: Add 'zoned' queue limit

Add the zoned queue limit to indicate the zoning model of a block device. Defined values are 0 (BLK_ZONED_NONE) for regular block devices, 1 (BLK_ZONED_HA) for host-aware zone block devices and 2 (BLK_ZONED_HM) for host-managed zone block devices. The standards defined drive managed model is not

[PATCH v7 7/7] blk-zoned: implement ioctls

From: Shaun Tancheff Adds the new BLKREPORTZONE and BLKRESETZONE ioctls for respectively obtaining the zone configuration of a zoned block device and resetting the write pointer of sequential zones of a zoned block device. The BLKREPORTZONE ioctl maps directly to a single

Re: [PATCH v2 7/8] blk-mq: Pair blk_mq_hctx_kobj_init() with blk_mq_hctx_kobj_put()

Looks fine, Reviewed-by: Sagi Grimberg -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-block" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: [PATCH v2 8/8] blk-mq: Cleanup (de-)allocation of blk_mq_hw_ctx::ctxs

Looks fine, Reviewed-by: Sagi Grimberg -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-block" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: [PATCH v2 6/8] blk-mq: Rework blk_mq_realloc_hw_ctxs()

@@ -1908,33 +1909,36 @@ static void blk_mq_realloc_hw_ctxs(struct blk_mq_tag_set *set, if (node == NUMA_NO_NODE) node = set->numa_node; - hctxs[i] = kzalloc_node(sizeof(struct blk_mq_hw_ctx), -

Re: [PATCH v2 5/8] blk-mq: Cleanup blk_mq_hw_ctx::cpumask (de-)allocation

Looks fine, Reviewed-by: Sagi Grimberg -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-block" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: [PATCH v2 4/8] blk-mq: Cleanup a loop exit condition

Looks good, Reviewed-by: Sagi Grimberg -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-block" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: [PATCH v2 3/8] blk-mq: Fix hardware context data node selection

Looks fine, Reviewed-by: Sagi Grimberg -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-block" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: [PATCH v2 2/8] blk-mq: Remove a redundant assignment

Looks good, Reviewed-by: Sagi Grimberg -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-block" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: [PATCH v2 1/8] block: Get rid of unused request_queue::nr_queues member

Looks good, Reviewed-by: Sagi Grimberg -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-block" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

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

On Wed, Oct 05, 2016 at 09:47:19PM +0200, Paolo Valente wrote: > > > Il giorno 05 ott 2016, alle ore 20:30, Shaohua Li ha scritto: > > > > On Wed, Oct 05, 2016 at 10:49:46AM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote: > >> Hello, Paolo. > >> > >> On Wed, Oct 05, 2016 at 02:37:00PM +0200, Paolo

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

On Wed, Oct 05, 2016 at 09:57:22PM +0200, Paolo Valente wrote: > > > Il giorno 05 ott 2016, alle ore 21:08, Shaohua Li ha scritto: > > > > On Wed, Oct 05, 2016 at 11:30:53AM -0700, Shaohua Li wrote: > >> On Wed, Oct 05, 2016 at 10:49:46AM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote: > >>> Hello, Paolo.

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

> Il giorno 05 ott 2016, alle ore 21:47, Paolo Valente > ha scritto: > >> >> Il giorno 05 ott 2016, alle ore 20:30, Shaohua Li ha scritto: >> >> On Wed, Oct 05, 2016 at 10:49:46AM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote: >>> Hello, Paolo. >>> >>> On Wed, Oct 05, 2016

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

On Wed, Oct 05, 2016 at 11:30:53AM -0700, Shaohua Li wrote: > On Wed, Oct 05, 2016 at 10:49:46AM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote: > > Hello, Paolo. > > > > On Wed, Oct 05, 2016 at 02:37:00PM +0200, Paolo Valente wrote: > > > In this respect, for your generic, unpredictable scenario to make > > > sense,

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

On 10/05/2016 11:14 AM, Sagi Grimberg wrote: Hello Ming, Can you have a look at the attached patch? That patch uses an srcu read lock for all queue types, whether or not the BLK_MQ_F_BLOCKING flag has been set. Additionally, I have dropped the QUEUE_FLAG_QUIESCING flag. Just like previous

[PATCH v2 0/2] Enabling ATA Command Priorities

This patch builds ATA commands with high priority if the iocontext of a process is set to real time. The goal of the patch is to improve tail latencies of workloads that use higher queue depths. This patch has been tested with an Ultrastar HE8 HDD and cuts the the p99.99 tail latency of

[PATCH v2 2/2] block: Add iocontext priority to request

Patch adds an association between iocontext ioprio and the ioprio of a request. This feature is only enabled if a queue flag is set to indicate that requests should have ioprio associated with them. The queue flag is exposed as the req_prio queue sysfs entry. Signed-off-by: Adam Mananzanares

[PATCH v2 1/2] ata: Enabling ATA Command Priorities

This patch checks to see if an ATA device supports NCQ command priorities. If so and the user has specified an iocontext that indicates IO_PRIO_CLASS_RT and also enables request priorities in the block queue then we build a tf with a high priority command. This patch depends on patch

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

On Wed, Oct 05, 2016 at 10:49:46AM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote: > Hello, Paolo. > > On Wed, Oct 05, 2016 at 02:37:00PM +0200, Paolo Valente wrote: > > In this respect, for your generic, unpredictable scenario to make > > sense, there must exist at least one real system that meets the > > requirements

Re: [PATCH v2 1/7] blk-mq: Introduce blk_mq_queue_stopped()

Looks good, Reviewed-by: Sagi Grimberg -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-block" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: [RFD] I/O scheduling in blk-mq

Hey, Paolo, On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 05:20:10PM +0200, Paolo Valente wrote: [snip] > > Hi, Paolo, > > > > I've been working on I/O scheduling for blk-mq with Jens for the past > > few months (splitting time with other small projects), and we're making > > good progress. Like you noticed, the hard

Re: [PATCH v2 3/7] [RFC] nvme: Use BLK_MQ_S_STOPPED instead of QUEUE_FLAG_STOPPED in blk-mq code

Make nvme_requeue_req() check BLK_MQ_S_STOPPED instead of QUEUE_FLAG_STOPPED. Remove the QUEUE_FLAG_STOPPED manipulations that became superfluous because of this change. This patch fixes a race condition: using queue_flag_clear_unlocked() is not safe if any other function that manipulates the

Re: [PATCH v2 6/7] SRP transport: Port srp_wait_for_queuecommand() to scsi-mq

+static void srp_mq_wait_for_queuecommand(struct Scsi_Host *shost) +{ + struct scsi_device *sdev; + struct request_queue *q; + + shost_for_each_device(sdev, shost) { + q = sdev->request_queue; + + blk_mq_quiesce_queue(q); +

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

Hello, Paolo. On Wed, Oct 05, 2016 at 02:37:00PM +0200, Paolo Valente wrote: > In this respect, for your generic, unpredictable scenario to make > sense, there must exist at least one real system that meets the > requirements of such a scenario. Or, if such a real system does not > yet exist, it

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

> Il giorno 05 ott 2016, alle ore 15:12, Vivek Goyal ha > scritto: > > On Wed, Oct 05, 2016 at 02:37:00PM +0200, Paolo Valente wrote: > > [..] >> Anyway, to avoid going on with trying speculations and arguments, let >> me retry with a practical proposal. BFQ is out there,

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

On Wed, Oct 05, 2016 at 02:37:00PM +0200, Paolo Valente wrote: [..] > Anyway, to avoid going on with trying speculations and arguments, let > me retry with a practical proposal. BFQ is out there, free. Let's > just test, measure and check whether we have already a solution to > the problems

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

> Il giorno 04 ott 2016, alle ore 22:27, Tejun Heo ha scritto: > > 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

Re: blockdev kernel regression (bugzilla 173031)

Hi all, Adding linux-block in CC for this bug report. On Wed, Oct 05, 2016 at 01:00:57PM +1100, NeilBrown wrote: > On Wed, Oct 05 2016, Francesco Dolcini wrote: > > Hi all, > > moving from kernel 3.14 to kernel 4.1 I had a kernel regression on block > > device. > > > > Problem first arise while