> Il giorno 02 gen 2017, alle ore 18:08, Arnd Bergmann ha
> scritto:
>
> On Monday, January 2, 2017 12:06:04 PM CET Hannes Reinecke wrote:
>> On 01/02/2017 10:40 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>>> b) without MMC CMDQ support:
>>> - report queue depth of '2'
>>> - first request gets handled as above
On Mon, 2017-01-02 at 22:06 +0100, Matias Bjørling wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The open-channel SSD subsystem is maturing, and drives are beginning
> to
> become available on the market.
What do you mean? We still have nothing on the market. I haven't
opportunity to access to any of such device. Could you
On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 03:33:29AM -0500, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 02:32:41AM -0500, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 12:22:27PM -0800, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > > On Wed, 21 Dec 2016, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 9:13 PM, Dave Chinne
Hi,
The open-channel SSD subsystem is maturing, and drives are beginning to
become available on the market. The open-channel SSD interface is very
similar to the one exposed by SMR hard-drives. They both have a set of
chunks (zones) exposed, and zones are managed using open/close logic.
The m
Hi,
this is to retry to request to attend the summit. This time I'm
trying to propose and agenda topic too.
I would like to attend, and propose a topic, because:
1) the project for adding (only) the BFQ I/O scheduler to blk-mq has
entered a quite active phase: the framework prepared by Jens seems
On Monday, January 2, 2017 12:06:04 PM CET Hannes Reinecke wrote:
> On 01/02/2017 10:40 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > b) without MMC CMDQ support:
> > - report queue depth of '2'
> > - first request gets handled as above
> > - if one request is pending, prepare the second request and
> > a
On Mon, Jan 02 2017, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> Hello Jens,
>
> The two patches in this series suppress sparse complaints that were
> introduced during the v4.10 merge window. It would be appreciated if these
> patches would be considered for inclusion in the upstream kernel.
I hand applied both of
On Tue 03-01-17 00:21:45, Eryu Guan wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 02, 2017 at 04:58:03PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
> > On Sun 25-12-16 19:01:03, Chandan Rajendra wrote:
> > > The first block to be cleaned may start at a non-zero page offset. In
> > > such a scenario clean_bdev_aliases() will end up cleaning bl
On 12/25/2016 06:31 AM, Chandan Rajendra wrote:
> The first block to be cleaned may start at a non-zero page offset. In
> such a scenario clean_bdev_aliases() will end up cleaning blocks that
> do not fall in the range of blocks to be cleaned. This commit fixes the
> issue by skipping blocks that d
On Mon, Jan 02, 2017 at 04:58:03PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Sun 25-12-16 19:01:03, Chandan Rajendra wrote:
> > The first block to be cleaned may start at a non-zero page offset. In
> > such a scenario clean_bdev_aliases() will end up cleaning blocks that
> > do not fall in the range of blocks to
On Sun 25-12-16 19:01:03, Chandan Rajendra wrote:
> The first block to be cleaned may start at a non-zero page offset. In
> such a scenario clean_bdev_aliases() will end up cleaning blocks that
> do not fall in the range of blocks to be cleaned. This commit fixes the
> issue by skipping blocks that
2016-12-23 12:45 GMT+01:00 Lars Ellenberg :
> On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 09:49:53AM +0100, Michael Wang wrote:
>> Dear Maintainers
>>
>> I'd like to ask for the status of this patch since we hit the
>> issue too during our testing on md raid1.
>>
>> Split remainder bio_A was queued ahead, following by
On 28/12/16 10:55, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 01:21:28PM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote:
>>> Could you please confirm on this- does even the HW/SW CMDQ in emmc would use
>>> only 1 hardware queue with (say ~31) as queue depth, of that HW queue? Is
>>> this understanding correct?
This patch does not change any functionality.
Fixes: e34cbd307477 ("blk-wbt: add general throttling mechanism")
Signed-off-by: Bart Van Assche
---
block/blk-wbt.c | 12 +++-
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/block/blk-wbt.c b/block/blk-wbt.c
index fd28c2806406
Fixes: e34cbd307477 ("blk-wbt: add general throttling mechanism")
Signed-off-by: Bart Van Assche
---
block/blk-wbt.c | 2 +-
1 file changed,
1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/block/blk-wbt.c b/block/blk-wbt.c
index 6e82769f4042..fd28c2806406 100644
--- a/block/blk-wbt.c
+++ b/block/blk-
Hello Jens,
The two patches in this series suppress sparse complaints that were
introduced during the v4.10 merge window. It would be appreciated if these
patches would be considered for inclusion in the upstream kernel.
Thanks,
Bart.
--
Bart Van Assche (2):
block: Make wbt_wait() definition
On Mon, 2017-01-02 at 12:06 +0100, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
> Hmm. But that would amount to implement yet another queuing mechanism
> within the driver/mmc subsystem, wouldn't it?
>
> Which is, incidentally, the same method the S/390 DASD driver uses
> nowadays; report an arbitrary queue depth to th
On Thu, 2016-12-29 at 00:59 +0100, Linus Walleij wrote:
> A problem here is that issueing the requests are in blocking context
> while completion is in IRQ context (for most drivers) so we need to
> look into this.
Hello Linus,
Although I'm not sure whether I understood you correctly: are you fam
On 01/02/2017 10:40 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Thursday, December 29, 2016 12:59:51 AM CET Linus Walleij wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 28, 2016 at 9:55 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>>> On Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 01:21:28PM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote:
>>
On the contrary we expect a performance regress
On Thursday, December 29, 2016 12:59:51 AM CET Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 28, 2016 at 9:55 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 01:21:28PM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote:
>
> >> On the contrary we expect a performance regression as mq has no
> >> scheduling. MQ is created
20 matches
Mail list logo
