Re: [PATCH V3 00/11] block-throttle: add .high limit

On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 9:14 PM, Tejun Heo wrote: > I get that bfq can be a good compromise on most desktop workloads and > behave reasonably well for some server workloads with the slice > expiration mechanism but it really isn't an IO resource partitioning > mechanism. Not

Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] ata: Enabling ATA Command Priorities

On 10/05/2016 09:00 PM, Adam Manzanares wrote: This patch checks to see if an ATA device supports NCQ command priorities. If so and the user has specified an iocontext that indicates IO_PRIO_CLASS_RT and also enables request priorities in the block queue then we build a tf with a high priority

Re: blockdev kernel regression (bugzilla 173031)

On Thu, Oct 06, 2016 at 04:42:52PM +1100, NeilBrown wrote: cc > Maybe there is a race, but that seems unlikely. Consider that just hot removal while writing is not enough to reproduce systematically the bug. while true; do [ ! -f /media/usb/.not_mounted ] \ && dd if=/dev/zero

Re: [PATCH 2/3] zram: support page-based parallel write

Hello Minchan, On (10/05/16 11:01), Minchan Kim wrote: [..] > 1. just changed ordering of test execution - hope to reduce testing time due > to >block population before the first reading or reading just zero pages > 2. used sync_on_close instead of direct io > 3. Don't use perf to avoid

Re: [Nbd] [PATCH][V3] nbd: add multi-connection support

On Thu, Oct 06, 2016 at 10:41:36AM +0100, Alex Bligh wrote: > Wouter, [...] > > Given that, given the issue in the previous > > paragraph, and given the uncertainty introduced with multiple > > connections, I think it is reasonable to say that a client should just > > not assume a flush touches

Re: [PATCH V3 00/11] block-throttle: add .high limit

On Thu, Oct 06, 2016 at 10:04:41AM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote: > On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 9:14 PM, Tejun Heo wrote: > > I get that bfq can be a good compromise on most desktop workloads and > > behave reasonably well for some server workloads with the slice > > expiration

Re: [PATCH V3 00/11] block-throttle: add .high limit

On 2016-10-06 08:50, Paolo Valente wrote: Il giorno 06 ott 2016, alle ore 13:57, Austin S. Hemmelgarn ha scritto: On 2016-10-06 07:03, Mark Brown wrote: On Thu, Oct 06, 2016 at 10:04:41AM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote: On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 9:14 PM, Tejun Heo

Re: [Nbd] [PATCH][V3] nbd: add multi-connection support

On Thu, Oct 06, 2016 at 06:16:30AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Thu, Oct 06, 2016 at 03:09:49PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > Okay, I've updated the proto.md file then, to clarify that in the case > > of multiple connections, a client MUST NOT send a flush request until it > > has seen

Re: [PATCH V3 00/11] block-throttle: add .high limit

> Il giorno 06 ott 2016, alle ore 09:58, Paolo Valente > ha scritto: > >> >> Il giorno 05 ott 2016, alle ore 22:46, Shaohua Li ha scritto: >> >> On Wed, Oct 05, 2016 at 09:47:19PM +0200, Paolo Valente wrote: >>> Il giorno 05 ott 2016, alle ore

Re: [Nbd] [PATCH][V3] nbd: add multi-connection support

On Thu, Oct 06, 2016 at 03:09:49PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > Okay, I've updated the proto.md file then, to clarify that in the case > of multiple connections, a client MUST NOT send a flush request until it > has seen the replies to the write requests that it cares about. That > should be

Re: [PATCH V3 00/11] block-throttle: add .high limit

> Il giorno 06 ott 2016, alle ore 13:57, Austin S. Hemmelgarn > ha scritto: > > On 2016-10-06 07:03, Mark Brown wrote: >> On Thu, Oct 06, 2016 at 10:04:41AM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote: >>> On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 9:14 PM, Tejun Heo wrote: >> I get

Re: [PATCH V3 00/11] block-throttle: add .high limit

> Il giorno 06 ott 2016, alle ore 21:57, Shaohua Li ha scritto: > > On Thu, Oct 06, 2016 at 09:58:44AM +0200, Paolo Valente wrote: >> >>> Il giorno 05 ott 2016, alle ore 22:46, Shaohua Li ha scritto: >>> >>> On Wed, Oct 05, 2016 at 09:47:19PM +0200, Paolo Valente

Re: [PATCH V3 00/11] block-throttle: add .high limit

> Il giorno 06 ott 2016, alle ore 20:32, Vivek Goyal ha > scritto: > > On Thu, Oct 06, 2016 at 08:01:42PM +0200, Paolo Valente wrote: >> >>> Il giorno 06 ott 2016, alle ore 19:49, Vivek Goyal ha >>> scritto: >>> >>> On Thu, Oct 06, 2016 at 03:15:50PM

Re: blockdev kernel regression (bugzilla 173031)

On Thu, Oct 06 2016, Francesco Dolcini wrote: > On Thu, Oct 06, 2016 at 04:42:52PM +1100, NeilBrown wrote: > cc >> Maybe there is a race, but that seems unlikely. > > Consider that just hot removal while writing is not enough to > reproduce systematically the bug. > > while true; do [ ! -f

loop mount: kernel BUG at lib/percpu-refcount.c:231

Hi, Below bug happened to me while loop mount a file image after stopping a kvm guest. But it only happend once til now.. [ 4761.031686] [ cut here ] [ 4761.075984] kernel BUG at lib/percpu-refcount.c:231! [ 4761.120184] invalid opcode: [#1] SMP [ 4761.164307]

Re: [PATCH] badblocks: fix overlapping check for clearing

On Tue, Sep 06 2016, Tomasz Majchrzak wrote: > Current bad block clear implementation assumes the range to clear > overlaps with at least one bad block already stored. If given range to > clear precedes first bad block in a list, the first entry is incorrectly > updated. In the original md

Re: [PATCH] blk-mq: Return invalid cookie if bio was split

Hi Keith, On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 12:51 AM, Keith Busch wrote: > On Wed, Oct 05, 2016 at 11:19:39AM +0800, Ming Lei wrote: >> But .poll() need to check if the specific request is completed or not, >> then blk_poll() can set 'current' as RUNNING if it is completed. >> >>