On Fri, Dec 07, 2018 at 11:44:39AM +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 06, 2018 at 09:46:42PM -0500, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 05, 2018 at 11:03:01AM +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> > >
> > > But at that time, there isn't io scheduler for MQ, so in theory the
> > > issue should be there
On Thu, Dec 06, 2018 at 09:46:42PM -0500, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 05, 2018 at 11:03:01AM +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> >
> > But at that time, there isn't io scheduler for MQ, so in theory the
> > issue should be there since v4.11, especially 945ffb60c11d ("mq-deadline:
> > add blk-mq
On 12/6/18 7:46 PM, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 05, 2018 at 11:03:01AM +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
>>
>> But at that time, there isn't io scheduler for MQ, so in theory the
>> issue should be there since v4.11, especially 945ffb60c11d ("mq-deadline:
>> add blk-mq adaptation of the deadline IO
On Wed, Dec 05, 2018 at 11:03:01AM +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
>
> But at that time, there isn't io scheduler for MQ, so in theory the
> issue should be there since v4.11, especially 945ffb60c11d ("mq-deadline:
> add blk-mq adaptation of the deadline IO scheduler").
Hi Ming,
How were serious you
On 12/5/18 12:09 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 05, 2018 at 10:59:21AM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
> [ ... ]
>>
>>> Also, it seems to me that even with this problem fixed, blk-mq may not
>>> be ready for primetime after all. With that in mind, maybe commit
>>> d5038a13eca72 ("scsi: core:
On Wed, Dec 05, 2018 at 10:59:21AM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
[ ... ]
>
> > Also, it seems to me that even with this problem fixed, blk-mq may not
> > be ready for primetime after all. With that in mind, maybe commit
> > d5038a13eca72 ("scsi: core: switch to scsi-mq by default") was a
> > bit
On 12/5/18 10:55 AM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 04, 2018 at 07:25:05PM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> On 12/4/18 6:38 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>>> On Tue, Dec 04, 2018 at 03:47:46PM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
If we attempt a direct issue to a SCSI device, and it returns BUSY, then
we
On Tue, Dec 04, 2018 at 07:25:05PM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 12/4/18 6:38 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 04, 2018 at 03:47:46PM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
> >> If we attempt a direct issue to a SCSI device, and it returns BUSY, then
> >> we queue the request up normally. However, the
On 12/5/18 7:41 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 04, 2018 at 03:47:46PM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> If we attempt a direct issue to a SCSI device, and it returns BUSY, then
>> we queue the request up normally. However, the SCSI layer may have
>> already setup SG tables etc for this
On Tue, Dec 04, 2018 at 03:47:46PM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
> If we attempt a direct issue to a SCSI device, and it returns BUSY, then
> we queue the request up normally. However, the SCSI layer may have
> already setup SG tables etc for this particular command. If we later
> merge with this
On 12/4/18 8:03 PM, Ming Lei wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 05, 2018 at 10:58:02AM +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 04, 2018 at 07:30:24PM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>> On 12/4/18 7:27 PM, Ming Lei wrote:
On Tue, Dec 04, 2018 at 07:16:11PM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 12/4/18 6:37 PM, Ming Lei
On 12/4/18 7:58 PM, Ming Lei wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 04, 2018 at 07:30:24PM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> On 12/4/18 7:27 PM, Ming Lei wrote:
>>> On Tue, Dec 04, 2018 at 07:16:11PM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
On 12/4/18 6:37 PM, Ming Lei wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 04, 2018 at 03:47:46PM -0700, Jens
On Wed, Dec 05, 2018 at 10:58:02AM +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 04, 2018 at 07:30:24PM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > On 12/4/18 7:27 PM, Ming Lei wrote:
> > > On Tue, Dec 04, 2018 at 07:16:11PM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > >> On 12/4/18 6:37 PM, Ming Lei wrote:
> > >>> On Tue, Dec 04, 2018
On Tue, Dec 04, 2018 at 07:30:24PM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 12/4/18 7:27 PM, Ming Lei wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 04, 2018 at 07:16:11PM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
> >> On 12/4/18 6:37 PM, Ming Lei wrote:
> >>> On Tue, Dec 04, 2018 at 03:47:46PM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
> If we attempt a direct
On 12/4/18 7:27 PM, Ming Lei wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 04, 2018 at 07:16:11PM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> On 12/4/18 6:37 PM, Ming Lei wrote:
>>> On Tue, Dec 04, 2018 at 03:47:46PM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
If we attempt a direct issue to a SCSI device, and it returns BUSY, then
we queue the
On Tue, Dec 04, 2018 at 07:16:11PM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 12/4/18 6:37 PM, Ming Lei wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 04, 2018 at 03:47:46PM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
> >> If we attempt a direct issue to a SCSI device, and it returns BUSY, then
> >> we queue the request up normally. However, the SCSI
On 12/4/18 6:38 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 04, 2018 at 03:47:46PM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> If we attempt a direct issue to a SCSI device, and it returns BUSY, then
>> we queue the request up normally. However, the SCSI layer may have
>> already setup SG tables etc for this
On 12/4/18 7:16 PM, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 12/4/18 6:37 PM, Ming Lei wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 04, 2018 at 03:47:46PM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>> If we attempt a direct issue to a SCSI device, and it returns BUSY, then
>>> we queue the request up normally. However, the SCSI layer may have
>>> already
On 12/4/18 6:37 PM, Ming Lei wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 04, 2018 at 03:47:46PM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> If we attempt a direct issue to a SCSI device, and it returns BUSY, then
>> we queue the request up normally. However, the SCSI layer may have
>> already setup SG tables etc for this particular
On Tue, Dec 04, 2018 at 03:47:46PM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
> If we attempt a direct issue to a SCSI device, and it returns BUSY, then
> we queue the request up normally. However, the SCSI layer may have
> already setup SG tables etc for this particular command. If we later
> merge with this
On Tue, Dec 04, 2018 at 03:47:46PM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
> If we attempt a direct issue to a SCSI device, and it returns BUSY, then
> we queue the request up normally. However, the SCSI layer may have
> already setup SG tables etc for this particular command. If we later
> merge with this
If we attempt a direct issue to a SCSI device, and it returns BUSY, then
we queue the request up normally. However, the SCSI layer may have
already setup SG tables etc for this particular command. If we later
merge with this request, then the old tables are no longer valid. Once
we issue the IO,
22 matches
Mail list logo
