i <toshi.k...@hpe.com>;
> Dan Williams <dan.j.willi...@intel.com>; Damien Le Moal
> <damien.lem...@hgst.com>; KY Srinivasan <k...@microsoft.com>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] block: loose check on sg gap
>
> On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 1:10 PM, Dexuan Cui <de...@microsoft.c
Mike Christie ; Martin K.
> Petersen ; Toshi Kani ;
> Dan Williams ; Damien Le Moal
> ; KY Srinivasan
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] block: loose check on sg gap
>
> On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 1:10 PM, Dexuan Cui wrote:
> >> From: Dexuan Cui
> >> Sent: Tuesday, December 20,
;mchri...@redhat.com>; Martin K. Petersen <martin.peter...@oracle.com>;
>> Toshi Kani <toshi.k...@hpe.com>; Dan Williams <dan.j.willi...@intel.com>;
>> Damien Le Moal <damien.lem...@hgst.com>
>> Subject: RE: [PATCH] block: loose check on sg gap
>>
>
>> ; Hannes Reinecke ; Mike Christie
>> ; Martin K. Petersen ;
>> Toshi Kani ; Dan Williams ;
>> Damien Le Moal
>> Subject: RE: [PATCH] block: loose check on sg gap
>>
>> > From: Jens Axboe [mailto:ax...@fb.com]
>> > Sent: Tuesday, December 20
pe.com>; Dan Williams <dan.j.willi...@intel.com>;
> Damien Le Moal <damien.lem...@hgst.com>
> Subject: RE: [PATCH] block: loose check on sg gap
>
> > From: Jens Axboe [mailto:ax...@fb.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2016 10:31
> > To: Ming Lei <ming.
Dan Williams ;
> Damien Le Moal
> Subject: RE: [PATCH] block: loose check on sg gap
>
> > From: Jens Axboe [mailto:ax...@fb.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2016 10:31
> > To: Ming Lei
> > Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List ; linux-block
> > bl...@vger.ke
Kani <toshi.k...@hpe.com>; Dan Williams <dan.j.willi...@intel.com>;
> Damien Le Moal <damien.lem...@hgst.com>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] block: loose check on sg gap
>
> On 12/19/2016 07:07 PM, Ming Lei wrote:
> > On Sun, Dec 18, 2016 at 12:49 AM, Jens Axboe <ax...@fb.
e
> ; Martin K. Petersen ;
> Toshi Kani ; Dan Williams ;
> Damien Le Moal
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] block: loose check on sg gap
>
> On 12/19/2016 07:07 PM, Ming Lei wrote:
> > On Sun, Dec 18, 2016 at 12:49 AM, Jens Axboe wrote:
> >> On 12/17/2016 03:49 AM, Ming Lei
On 12/19/2016 07:07 PM, Ming Lei wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 18, 2016 at 12:49 AM, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> On 12/17/2016 03:49 AM, Ming Lei wrote:
>>> If the last bvec of the 1st bio and the 1st bvec of the next
>>> bio are contineous physically, and the latter can be merged
>>> to last
On 12/19/2016 07:07 PM, Ming Lei wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 18, 2016 at 12:49 AM, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> On 12/17/2016 03:49 AM, Ming Lei wrote:
>>> If the last bvec of the 1st bio and the 1st bvec of the next
>>> bio are contineous physically, and the latter can be merged
>>> to last segment of the 1st
On Sun, Dec 18, 2016 at 12:49 AM, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 12/17/2016 03:49 AM, Ming Lei wrote:
>> If the last bvec of the 1st bio and the 1st bvec of the next
>> bio are contineous physically, and the latter can be merged
>> to last segment of the 1st bio, we should think they don't
On Sun, Dec 18, 2016 at 12:49 AM, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 12/17/2016 03:49 AM, Ming Lei wrote:
>> If the last bvec of the 1st bio and the 1st bvec of the next
>> bio are contineous physically, and the latter can be merged
>> to last segment of the 1st bio, we should think they don't
>> violate sg
On 12/17/2016 03:49 AM, Ming Lei wrote:
> If the last bvec of the 1st bio and the 1st bvec of the next
> bio are contineous physically, and the latter can be merged
> to last segment of the 1st bio, we should think they don't
> violate sg gap(or virt boundary) limit.
>
> Both Vitaly and Dexuan
On 12/17/2016 03:49 AM, Ming Lei wrote:
> If the last bvec of the 1st bio and the 1st bvec of the next
> bio are contineous physically, and the latter can be merged
> to last segment of the 1st bio, we should think they don't
> violate sg gap(or virt boundary) limit.
>
> Both Vitaly and Dexuan
If the last bvec of the 1st bio and the 1st bvec of the next
bio are contineous physically, and the latter can be merged
to last segment of the 1st bio, we should think they don't
violate sg gap(or virt boundary) limit.
Both Vitaly and Dexuan reported lots of unmergeable small bios
are observed
If the last bvec of the 1st bio and the 1st bvec of the next
bio are contineous physically, and the latter can be merged
to last segment of the 1st bio, we should think they don't
violate sg gap(or virt boundary) limit.
Both Vitaly and Dexuan reported lots of unmergeable small bios
are observed
16 matches
Mail list logo