On 2/5/19 7:50 AM, Javier González wrote:
In order to respect mw_cuinits, pblk's write buffer maintains a
backpointer to protect data not yet persisted; when writing to the write
buffer, this backpointer defines a threshold that pblk's rate-limiter
enforces.
On small PU configurations, the follo
In order to respect mw_cuinits, pblk's write buffer maintains a
backpointer to protect data not yet persisted; when writing to the write
buffer, this backpointer defines a threshold that pblk's rate-limiter
enforces.
On small PU configurations, the following scenarios might take place: (i)
the thr
Hi again,
while refactoring the code I realized that there is another case we
are not considering:
if the max and min write pointers across all non-bad chunks are off by
more than the write unit, we will not be able to continue writing to
the line.
I'm adding a check of this in my patch.
All the
> On 25 Jan 2019, at 21.20, Hans Holmberg
> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 7:33 PM Javier González wrote:
>>
>>
>>
On 25 Jan 2019, at 17.46, Hans Holmberg
wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 3:35 PM Matias Bjørling wrote:
>
>> On 1/25/19 3:21 PM, Hans Holm
On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 7:33 PM Javier González wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 25 Jan 2019, at 17.46, Hans Holmberg
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 3:35 PM Matias Bjørling wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 1/25/19 3:21 PM, Hans Holmberg wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 2:33 PM Javier González
>
> On 25 Jan 2019, at 17.46, Hans Holmberg
> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 3:35 PM Matias Bjørling wrote:
>>
>>> On 1/25/19 3:21 PM, Hans Holmberg wrote:
On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 2:33 PM Javier González wrote:
> On 25 Jan 2019, at 13.59, Hans Holmberg
> wrote
On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 3:35 PM Matias Bjørling wrote:
>
> On 1/25/19 3:21 PM, Hans Holmberg wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 2:33 PM Javier González wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> On 25 Jan 2019, at 13.59, Hans Holmberg
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 10:41 AM Javier González
> >>
On 1/25/19 3:21 PM, Hans Holmberg wrote:
On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 2:33 PM Javier González wrote:
On 25 Jan 2019, at 13.59, Hans Holmberg wrote:
On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 10:41 AM Javier González wrote:
On 25 Jan 2019, at 09.47, Hans Holmberg wrote:
On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 8:51 PM Zhoujie
On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 2:33 PM Javier González wrote:
>
>
> > On 25 Jan 2019, at 13.59, Hans Holmberg
> > wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 10:41 AM Javier González wrote:
> >>> On 25 Jan 2019, at 09.47, Hans Holmberg
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 8:51 PM Zhoujie Wu
> On 25 Jan 2019, at 13.59, Hans Holmberg
> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 10:41 AM Javier González wrote:
>>> On 25 Jan 2019, at 09.47, Hans Holmberg
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 8:51 PM Zhoujie Wu wrote:
The write pointer of the bad block could be 0 or undefined, i
On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 10:41 AM Javier González wrote:
>
>
> > On 25 Jan 2019, at 09.47, Hans Holmberg
> > wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 8:51 PM Zhoujie Wu wrote:
> >> The write pointer of the bad block could be 0 or undefined, ignore
> >> the checking of the bad block wp for pblk_lin
> On 25 Jan 2019, at 09.47, Hans Holmberg
> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 8:51 PM Zhoujie Wu wrote:
>> The write pointer of the bad block could be 0 or undefined, ignore
>> the checking of the bad block wp for pblk_line_wp_is_unbalanced to
>> avoid fake warning.
>
> fake -> spurious?
>
On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 8:51 PM Zhoujie Wu wrote:
>
> The write pointer of the bad block could be 0 or undefined, ignore
> the checking of the bad block wp for pblk_line_wp_is_unbalanced to
> avoid fake warning.
fake -> spurious?
>
> Signed-off-by: Zhoujie Wu
> ---
> v3: return in case bit >= l
The write pointer of the bad block could be 0 or undefined, ignore
the checking of the bad block wp for pblk_line_wp_is_unbalanced to
avoid fake warning.
Signed-off-by: Zhoujie Wu
---
v3: return in case bit >= lm->blk_per_line.
v2: changed according to Javier's comments.
drivers/lightnvm/pblk-r
Thank you Igor! Nice catch. If this is the only issue I'll send another patch.
On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 7:51 PM Igor Konopko wrote:
>
>
>
> On 06.07.2018 05:18, Matias Bjørling wrote:
> > On 07/06/2018 12:12 PM, Heiner Litz wrote:
> >> In the read path, partial reads are currently performed synchron
On 06.07.2018 05:18, Matias Bjørling wrote:
On 07/06/2018 12:12 PM, Heiner Litz wrote:
In the read path, partial reads are currently performed synchronously
which affects performance for workloads that generate many partial
reads. This patch adds an asynchronous partial read path as well as
t
On 07/06/2018 12:12 PM, Heiner Litz wrote:
In the read path, partial reads are currently performed synchronously
which affects performance for workloads that generate many partial
reads. This patch adds an asynchronous partial read path as well as
the required partial read ctx.
Signed-off-by: He
In the read path, partial reads are currently performed synchronously
which affects performance for workloads that generate many partial
reads. This patch adds an asynchronous partial read path as well as
the required partial read ctx.
Signed-off-by: Heiner Litz
---
v3: rebase to head, incorpor
This patch introduces pblk, a new target for LightNVM implementing a
full host-based FTL. Details on the commit message.
Changes since v2:
* Rebase on top of Matias' for-4.12/core
* Implement L2P scan recovery to recover L2P table in case of power
failure.
* Re-design disk format to be more flex
19 matches
Mail list logo
