On 16.02.21 12:18, Brian Foster wrote:
On Mon, Feb 15, 2021 at 02:36:38PM +0100, Donald Buczek wrote:
On 13.01.21 22:53, Dave Chinner wrote:
[...]
I agree that a throttling fix is needed, but I'm trying to
understand the scope and breadth of the problem first instead of
jumping the gun and
On Mon, Feb 15, 2021 at 02:36:38PM +0100, Donald Buczek wrote:
> On 13.01.21 22:53, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > [...]
> > I agree that a throttling fix is needed, but I'm trying to
> > understand the scope and breadth of the problem first instead of
> > jumping the gun and making the wrong fix for the
On 13.01.21 22:53, Dave Chinner wrote:
[...]
I agree that a throttling fix is needed, but I'm trying to
understand the scope and breadth of the problem first instead of
jumping the gun and making the wrong fix for the wrong reasons that
just papers over the underlying problems that the
On Fri, Jan 08, 2021 at 11:56:57AM -0500, Brian Foster wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 08, 2021 at 08:54:44AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > e.g. we run the first transaction into the CIL, it steals the sapce
> > needed for the cil checkpoint headers for the transaciton. Then if
> > the space returned by the
On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 11:38:48AM -0500, Brian Foster wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 08, 2021 at 11:56:57AM -0500, Brian Foster wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 08, 2021 at 08:54:44AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jan 04, 2021 at 11:23:53AM -0500, Brian Foster wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Dec 31, 2020 at
On Fri, Jan 08, 2021 at 11:56:57AM -0500, Brian Foster wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 08, 2021 at 08:54:44AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 04, 2021 at 11:23:53AM -0500, Brian Foster wrote:
> > > On Thu, Dec 31, 2020 at 09:16:11AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Dec 30, 2020 at
On 07.01.21 23:19, Dave Chinner wrote:
On Sun, Jan 03, 2021 at 05:03:33PM +0100, Donald Buczek wrote:
On 02.01.21 23:44, Dave Chinner wrote:
On Sat, Jan 02, 2021 at 08:12:56PM +0100, Donald Buczek wrote:
On 31.12.20 22:59, Dave Chinner wrote:
On Thu, Dec 31, 2020 at 12:48:56PM +0100, Donald
On Fri, Jan 08, 2021 at 08:54:44AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 04, 2021 at 11:23:53AM -0500, Brian Foster wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 31, 2020 at 09:16:11AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > > On Wed, Dec 30, 2020 at 12:56:27AM +0100, Donald Buczek wrote:
> > > > If the value goes below the
On Sun, Jan 03, 2021 at 05:03:33PM +0100, Donald Buczek wrote:
> On 02.01.21 23:44, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > On Sat, Jan 02, 2021 at 08:12:56PM +0100, Donald Buczek wrote:
> > > On 31.12.20 22:59, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Dec 31, 2020 at 12:48:56PM +0100, Donald Buczek wrote:
> > > > >
On Mon, Jan 04, 2021 at 11:23:53AM -0500, Brian Foster wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 31, 2020 at 09:16:11AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 30, 2020 at 12:56:27AM +0100, Donald Buczek wrote:
> > > If the value goes below the limit while some threads are
> > > already waiting but before the push
On Thu, Dec 31, 2020 at 09:16:11AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 30, 2020 at 12:56:27AM +0100, Donald Buczek wrote:
> > Threads, which committed items to the CIL, wait in the xc_push_wait
> > waitqueue when used_space in the push context goes over a limit. These
> > threads need to be
On 02.01.21 23:44, Dave Chinner wrote:
On Sat, Jan 02, 2021 at 08:12:56PM +0100, Donald Buczek wrote:
On 31.12.20 22:59, Dave Chinner wrote:
On Thu, Dec 31, 2020 at 12:48:56PM +0100, Donald Buczek wrote:
On 30.12.20 23:16, Dave Chinner wrote:
One could argue that, but one should also
On Sat, Jan 02, 2021 at 08:12:56PM +0100, Donald Buczek wrote:
> On 31.12.20 22:59, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 31, 2020 at 12:48:56PM +0100, Donald Buczek wrote:
> > > On 30.12.20 23:16, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > One could argue that, but one should also understand the design
> >
On 31.12.20 22:59, Dave Chinner wrote:
Hey, funny, your email could celebrate New Year a second time :-)
On Thu, Dec 31, 2020 at 12:48:56PM +0100, Donald Buczek wrote:
On 30.12.20 23:16, Dave Chinner wrote:
On Wed, Dec 30, 2020 at 12:56:27AM +0100, Donald Buczek wrote:
Threads, which
On Thu, Dec 31, 2020 at 12:48:56PM +0100, Donald Buczek wrote:
> On 30.12.20 23:16, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 30, 2020 at 12:56:27AM +0100, Donald Buczek wrote:
> > > Threads, which committed items to the CIL, wait in the
> > > xc_push_wait waitqueue when used_space in the push context
>
On 30.12.20 23:16, Dave Chinner wrote:
On Wed, Dec 30, 2020 at 12:56:27AM +0100, Donald Buczek wrote:
Threads, which committed items to the CIL, wait in the xc_push_wait
waitqueue when used_space in the push context goes over a limit. These
threads need to be woken when the CIL is pushed.
The
On Wed, Dec 30, 2020 at 12:56:27AM +0100, Donald Buczek wrote:
> Threads, which committed items to the CIL, wait in the xc_push_wait
> waitqueue when used_space in the push context goes over a limit. These
> threads need to be woken when the CIL is pushed.
>
> The CIL push worker tries to avoid
On 30.12.20 03:46, Hillf Danton wrote:
On Wed, 30 Dec 2020 00:56:27 +0100
Threads, which committed items to the CIL, wait in the xc_push_wait
waitqueue when used_space in the push context goes over a limit. These
threads need to be woken when the CIL is pushed.
The CIL push worker tries to
Threads, which committed items to the CIL, wait in the xc_push_wait
waitqueue when used_space in the push context goes over a limit. These
threads need to be woken when the CIL is pushed.
The CIL push worker tries to avoid the overhead of calling wake_all()
when there are no waiters waiting. It
19 matches
Mail list logo