On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 3:11 PM, Coly Li wrote:
> In bcache code, sysfs entries are created before all resources get
> allocated, e.g. allocation thread of a cache set.
>
> There is posibility for NULL pointer deference if a resource is accessed
> but which is not initialized yet.
On 2017/9/28 上午1:41, Michael Lyle wrote:
> bcache uses a control system to attempt to keep the amount of dirty data
> in cache at a user-configured level, while not responding excessively to
> transients and variations in write rate. Previously, the system was a
> PD controller; but the output
Coly--
On 10/07/2017 09:22 PM, Coly Li wrote:
[snip]
rate: 488.2M/sec
dirty: 91.7G
target: 152.3G
proportional: -1.5G
integral: 10.9G
change: 0.0k/sec
next io:0ms
[snip]
The backing cached device size is 7.2TB, cache device is 1.4TB, block
The previous code artificially limited writeback rate to 100
blocks/second (NSEC_PER_MSEC), which is a rate that can be met on fast
hardware. The rate limiting code works fine (though with decreased
precision) up to 3 orders of magnitude faster, so use NSEC_PER_SEC.
Additionally, ensure that
Indeed fixes a bug where minors and indices are interchanged on
cleanup-- good catch. Factoring out the index conversion is nice.
Hopefully no one is adversely affected by the stride change (16->128)
and different naming, but they should be using udev + labels/uuids
anyways.
Reviewed-by:
On 2017/10/8 上午5:42, Michael Lyle wrote:
> Indeed fixes a bug where minors and indices are interchanged on
> cleanup-- good catch. Factoring out the index conversion is nice.
>
Hi Mike,
> Hopefully no one is adversely affected by the stride change (16->128)
> and different naming, but they
On 2017/10/8 下午12:57, Michael Lyle wrote:
> Coly--
>
>
> On 10/07/2017 09:22 PM, Coly Li wrote:
> [snip]
>> rate: 488.2M/sec
>> dirty: 91.7G
>> target: 152.3G
>> proportional: -1.5G
>> integral: 10.9G
>> change: 0.0k/sec
>> next io: 0ms
> [snip]
>
>> The
On Sat, Sep 30, 2017 at 10:57:31PM +0800, weiping zhang wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 11:36:28PM +0800, weiping zhang wrote:
> > if blk-mq use "none" io scheduler, nr_request get a wrong value when
> > input a number > tag_set->queue_depth. blk_mq_tag_update_depth will get
> > the smaller one
Bool initializations should use true and false. Bool tests don't need
comparisons.
Signed-off-by: Thomas Meyer
---
diff -u -p a/block/bfq-iosched.c b/block/bfq-iosched.c
--- a/block/bfq-iosched.c
+++ b/block/bfq-iosched.c
@@ -4986,7 +4986,7 @@ static ssize_t