Re: [PATCH 03/11] fs: add frozen sb state helpers

On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 06:13:10PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote: > On Wed 29-11-17 15:23:48, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > The question of whether or not a superblock is frozen needs to be > > augmented in the future to account for differences between a user > > initiated freeze and a kernel initiated

Re: [PATCH 03/11] fs: add frozen sb state helpers

On Sun, Apr 22, 2018 at 01:53:23AM +0200, Jan Kara wrote: > On Fri 20-04-18 11:49:32, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 05:59:36PM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > > On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 12:03:29PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote: > > > > Hello, > > > > > > > > I think I owe you a

Re: [PATCH 03/11] fs: add frozen sb state helpers

On Fri 20-04-18 11:49:32, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 05:59:36PM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 12:03:29PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote: > > > Hello, > > > > > > I think I owe you a reply here... Sorry that it took so long. > > > > Took me just as

Re: [PATCH 2/4] iomap: iomap_dio_rw() handles all sync writes

On Wed 18-04-18 14:08:26, Dave Chinner wrote: > From: Dave Chinner > > Currently iomap_dio_rw() only handles (data)sync write completions > for AIO. This means we can't optimised non-AIO IO to minimise device > flushes as we can't tell the caller whether a flush is required

Re: [PATCH 4/4] iomap: Use FUA for pure data O_DSYNC DIO writes

On Wed 18-04-18 14:08:28, Dave Chinner wrote: > @@ -1012,8 +1035,16 @@ iomap_dio_rw(struct kiocb *iocb, struct iov_iter *iter, > dio->flags |= IOMAP_DIO_DIRTY; > } else { > dio->flags |= IOMAP_DIO_WRITE; > - if (iocb->ki_flags & IOCB_DSYNC) > +

Re: question about request merge

On 4/21/18 8:07 AM, Zhengyuan Liu wrote: > 2018-04-20 22:34 GMT+08:00 Jens Axboe : >> On 4/19/18 9:51 PM, Zhengyuan Liu wrote: >>> Hi, Shaohua >>> >>> I found it indeed doesn't do front merge when two threads flush plug list >>> concurrently. To >>> reappear , I prepared two

Re: [PATCH v6] blk-mq: Avoid that a completion can be ignored for BLK_EH_RESET_TIMER

On 4/21/18 9:05 AM, Bart Van Assche wrote: > On Sat, 2018-04-21 at 22:55 +0800, jianchao.wang wrote: >> So we have a __deadline as below: >> >> deadline gen state >>> __||_| >> >>\___ __/ >>V >>

Re: [PATCH v6] blk-mq: Avoid that a completion can be ignored for BLK_EH_RESET_TIMER

On Sat, 2018-04-21 at 22:55 +0800, jianchao.wang wrote: > So we have a __deadline as below: > > deadline gen state > > __||_| > >\___ __/ >V > granularity > > and even we usually have a 30~60s

Re: [PATCH v6] blk-mq: Avoid that a completion can be ignored for BLK_EH_RESET_TIMER

On 04/21/2018 10:10 PM, Jens Axboe wrote: > On 4/21/18 7:34 AM, jianchao.wang wrote: >> Hi Bart >> >> Thanks for your kindly response. >> >> On 04/20/2018 10:11 PM, Bart Van Assche wrote: >>> On Fri, 2018-04-20 at 14:55 +0800, jianchao.wang wrote: Hi Bart On 04/20/2018 12:43 AM,

Re: [PATCH v6] blk-mq: Avoid that a completion can be ignored for BLK_EH_RESET_TIMER

On 4/21/18 7:34 AM, jianchao.wang wrote: > Hi Bart > > Thanks for your kindly response. > > On 04/20/2018 10:11 PM, Bart Van Assche wrote: >> On Fri, 2018-04-20 at 14:55 +0800, jianchao.wang wrote: >>> Hi Bart >>> >>> On 04/20/2018 12:43 AM, Bart Van Assche wrote: Use the deadline instead

Re: question about request merge

2018-04-20 22:34 GMT+08:00 Jens Axboe : > On 4/19/18 9:51 PM, Zhengyuan Liu wrote: >> Hi, Shaohua >> >> I found it indeed doesn't do front merge when two threads flush plug list >> concurrently. To >> reappear , I prepared two IO threads , named a0.io and a1.io . >> Thread

Re: [PATCH v6] blk-mq: Avoid that a completion can be ignored for BLK_EH_RESET_TIMER

Hi Bart Thanks for your kindly response. On 04/20/2018 10:11 PM, Bart Van Assche wrote: > On Fri, 2018-04-20 at 14:55 +0800, jianchao.wang wrote: >> Hi Bart >> >> On 04/20/2018 12:43 AM, Bart Van Assche wrote: >>> Use the deadline instead of the request generation to detect whether >>> or not

Re: usercopy whitelist woe in scsi_sense_cache

> Il giorno 20 apr 2018, alle ore 22:23, Kees Cook ha > scritto: > > On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 2:32 AM, Paolo Valente > wrote: >> I'm missing something here. When the request gets completed in the >> first place, the hook