On (01/28/15 15:08), Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> hm... no, it's 100% stable
sorry, should be "it's NOT 100% stable".
-ss
> ./iozone -t 3 -R -r 16K -s 60M -I +Z
>
> test basesrcu
>
> " Initial write " 1274320.94 1251996.78
> "Rewrite " 1965783.94
On (01/28/15 14:35), Minchan Kim wrote:
> I tested it with dd on /dev/zram0 without any FS on my KVM
> and I cannot see any measureable performance gap.
> Hmm, I will try it on real machine.
hm... no, it's 100% stable
./iozone -t 3 -R -r 16K -s 60M -I +Z
test basesrcu
On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 01:58:55PM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 01:50:28PM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> > On (01/28/15 13:07), Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> > > On (01/28/15 12:53), Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> > > > > So, I want to go with srcu. Do you agree? or another
On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 01:50:28PM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> On (01/28/15 13:07), Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> > On (01/28/15 12:53), Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> > > > So, I want to go with srcu. Do you agree? or another suggestion?
> > >
> > > yes, I think we need to take a second look
On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 12:53:54PM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> On (01/28/15 11:57), Minchan Kim wrote:
> [..]
> > > second,
> > > after kick_all_cpus_sync() new RW operations will see false init_done().
> > > bdev->bd_holders protects from resetting device which has read/write
> > >
On (01/28/15 13:07), Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> On (01/28/15 12:53), Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> > > So, I want to go with srcu. Do you agree? or another suggestion?
> >
> > yes, I think we need to take a second look on srcu approach.
> >
>
> ... or we can ask lockdep to stop false alarming us
On (01/28/15 12:53), Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> > So, I want to go with srcu. Do you agree? or another suggestion?
>
> yes, I think we need to take a second look on srcu approach.
>
... or we can ask lockdep to stop false alarming us and leave it as is.
I wouldn't say that ->init_lock is so
On (01/28/15 11:57), Minchan Kim wrote:
[..]
> > second,
> > after kick_all_cpus_sync() new RW operations will see false init_done().
> > bdev->bd_holders protects from resetting device which has read/write
> > operation ongoing on the onther CPU.
> >
> > I need to refresh on how ->bd_holders
On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 11:07:59AM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> On (01/28/15 09:22), Minchan Kim wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 09:15:27AM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > > Hello Sergey,
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 01:03:05PM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> > > > Hello,
> > > >
On (01/28/15 09:22), Minchan Kim wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 09:15:27AM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > Hello Sergey,
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 01:03:05PM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > On (01/27/15 12:18), Minchan Kim wrote:
> > > > Hello Sergey,
> > > >
> >
On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 09:24:49AM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On (01/28/15 09:15), Minchan Kim wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Sat, Jan 24, 2015 at 12:47:07AM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On (01/23/15 15:48), Jerome Marchand wrote:
> > > > > > >
Hello,
On (01/28/15 09:15), Minchan Kim wrote:
> > > > > > > On Sat, Jan 24, 2015 at 12:47:07AM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > On (01/23/15 15:48), Jerome Marchand wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On 01/23/2015 03:24 PM, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On
On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 09:15:27AM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
> Hello Sergey,
>
> On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 01:03:05PM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > On (01/27/15 12:18), Minchan Kim wrote:
> > > Hello Sergey,
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 11:17:04AM +0900, Sergey
Hello Sergey,
On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 01:03:05PM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On (01/27/15 12:18), Minchan Kim wrote:
> > Hello Sergey,
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 11:17:04AM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> > > On (01/27/15 01:00), Minchan Kim wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Jan
Hello,
On (01/28/15 09:15), Minchan Kim wrote:
On Sat, Jan 24, 2015 at 12:47:07AM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky
wrote:
On (01/23/15 15:48), Jerome Marchand wrote:
On 01/23/2015 03:24 PM, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
On (01/23/15 14:58), Minchan Kim wrote:
On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 09:15:27AM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
Hello Sergey,
On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 01:03:05PM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
Hello,
On (01/27/15 12:18), Minchan Kim wrote:
Hello Sergey,
On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 11:17:04AM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 09:24:49AM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
Hello,
On (01/28/15 09:15), Minchan Kim wrote:
On Sat, Jan 24, 2015 at 12:47:07AM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky
wrote:
On (01/23/15 15:48), Jerome Marchand wrote:
On 01/23/2015 03:24 PM, Sergey
On (01/28/15 09:22), Minchan Kim wrote:
On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 09:15:27AM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
Hello Sergey,
On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 01:03:05PM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
Hello,
On (01/27/15 12:18), Minchan Kim wrote:
Hello Sergey,
On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at
Hello Sergey,
On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 01:03:05PM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
Hello,
On (01/27/15 12:18), Minchan Kim wrote:
Hello Sergey,
On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 11:17:04AM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
On (01/27/15 01:00), Minchan Kim wrote:
On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at
On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 11:07:59AM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
On (01/28/15 09:22), Minchan Kim wrote:
On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 09:15:27AM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
Hello Sergey,
On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 01:03:05PM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
Hello,
On (01/27/15
On (01/28/15 13:07), Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
On (01/28/15 12:53), Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
So, I want to go with srcu. Do you agree? or another suggestion?
yes, I think we need to take a second look on srcu approach.
... or we can ask lockdep to stop false alarming us and leave
On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 12:53:54PM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
On (01/28/15 11:57), Minchan Kim wrote:
[..]
second,
after kick_all_cpus_sync() new RW operations will see false init_done().
bdev-bd_holders protects from resetting device which has read/write
operation ongoing on
On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 01:50:28PM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
On (01/28/15 13:07), Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
On (01/28/15 12:53), Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
So, I want to go with srcu. Do you agree? or another suggestion?
yes, I think we need to take a second look on srcu
On (01/28/15 14:35), Minchan Kim wrote:
I tested it with dd on /dev/zram0 without any FS on my KVM
and I cannot see any measureable performance gap.
Hmm, I will try it on real machine.
hm... no, it's 100% stable
./iozone -t 3 -R -r 16K -s 60M -I +Z
test basesrcu
On (01/28/15 15:08), Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
hm... no, it's 100% stable
sorry, should be it's NOT 100% stable.
-ss
./iozone -t 3 -R -r 16K -s 60M -I +Z
test basesrcu
Initial write 1274320.94 1251996.78
Rewrite 1965783.94 1994964.06
On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 01:58:55PM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 01:50:28PM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
On (01/28/15 13:07), Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
On (01/28/15 12:53), Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
So, I want to go with srcu. Do you agree? or another suggestion?
On (01/28/15 12:53), Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
So, I want to go with srcu. Do you agree? or another suggestion?
yes, I think we need to take a second look on srcu approach.
... or we can ask lockdep to stop false alarming us and leave it as is.
I wouldn't say that -init_lock is so hard to
On (01/28/15 11:57), Minchan Kim wrote:
[..]
second,
after kick_all_cpus_sync() new RW operations will see false init_done().
bdev-bd_holders protects from resetting device which has read/write
operation ongoing on the onther CPU.
I need to refresh on how -bd_holders actually
Hello,
On (01/27/15 12:18), Minchan Kim wrote:
> Hello Sergey,
>
> On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 11:17:04AM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> > On (01/27/15 01:00), Minchan Kim wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 11:17:09PM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> > > > Hello,
> > > >
> > > > On
Hello Sergey,
On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 11:17:04AM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> On (01/27/15 01:00), Minchan Kim wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 11:17:09PM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > On (01/26/15 10:33), Minchan Kim wrote:
> > > > Hello,
> > > >
> > > > On
On (01/27/15 01:00), Minchan Kim wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 11:17:09PM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > On (01/26/15 10:33), Minchan Kim wrote:
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > On Sat, Jan 24, 2015 at 12:47:07AM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> > > > On (01/23/15 15:48),
On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 11:17:09PM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On (01/26/15 10:33), Minchan Kim wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > On Sat, Jan 24, 2015 at 12:47:07AM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> > > On (01/23/15 15:48), Jerome Marchand wrote:
> > > > On 01/23/2015 03:24 PM, Sergey
> Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2015 15:48:05 +0100
> >>> From: Jerome Marchand
> >>> To: Sergey Senozhatsky , Minchan Kim
> >>>
> >>> CC: Andrew Morton ,
> >>> linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux...@kvack.org, Nitin Gupta
> >>>
&g
gey Senozhatsky , Minchan Kim
>>>
>>> CC: Andrew Morton ,
>>> linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux...@kvack.org, Nitin Gupta
>>>
>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] zram: free meta out of init_lock
>>> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv
Hello,
On (01/26/15 10:33), Minchan Kim wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Sat, Jan 24, 2015 at 12:47:07AM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> > On (01/23/15 15:48), Jerome Marchand wrote:
> > > On 01/23/2015 03:24 PM, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> > > > On (01/23/15 14:58), Minchan Kim wrote:
> > > >> We
Hello,
On (01/26/15 10:33), Minchan Kim wrote:
Hello,
On Sat, Jan 24, 2015 at 12:47:07AM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
On (01/23/15 15:48), Jerome Marchand wrote:
On 01/23/2015 03:24 PM, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
On (01/23/15 14:58), Minchan Kim wrote:
We don't need to call
On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 11:17:09PM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
Hello,
On (01/26/15 10:33), Minchan Kim wrote:
Hello,
On Sat, Jan 24, 2015 at 12:47:07AM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
On (01/23/15 15:48), Jerome Marchand wrote:
On 01/23/2015 03:24 PM, Sergey Senozhatsky
: Jerome Marchand jmarc...@redhat.com
To: Sergey Senozhatsky sergey.senozhat...@gmail.com, Minchan Kim
minc...@kernel.org
CC: Andrew Morton a...@linux-foundation.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux...@kvack.org, Nitin Gupta
ngu...@vflare.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] zram: free meta out
...@gmail.com, Minchan Kim
minc...@kernel.org
CC: Andrew Morton a...@linux-foundation.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux...@kvack.org, Nitin Gupta
ngu...@vflare.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] zram: free meta out of init_lock
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101
On (01/27/15 01:00), Minchan Kim wrote:
On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 11:17:09PM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
Hello,
On (01/26/15 10:33), Minchan Kim wrote:
Hello,
On Sat, Jan 24, 2015 at 12:47:07AM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
On (01/23/15 15:48), Jerome Marchand wrote:
Hello,
On (01/27/15 12:18), Minchan Kim wrote:
Hello Sergey,
On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 11:17:04AM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
On (01/27/15 01:00), Minchan Kim wrote:
On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 11:17:09PM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
Hello,
On (01/26/15 10:33), Minchan
Hello Sergey,
On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 11:17:04AM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
On (01/27/15 01:00), Minchan Kim wrote:
On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 11:17:09PM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
Hello,
On (01/26/15 10:33), Minchan Kim wrote:
Hello,
On Sat, Jan 24, 2015 at
> > linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux...@kvack.org, Nitin Gupta
> >
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] zram: free meta out of init_lock
> > User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101
> > Thunderbird/31.3.0
> >
> > On 01/23/2015 03:24
: Andrew Morton a...@linux-foundation.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux...@kvack.org, Nitin Gupta
ngu...@vflare.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] zram: free meta out of init_lock
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/31.3.0
On 01/23/2015
On (01/23/15 15:48), Jerome Marchand wrote:
> Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2015 15:48:05 +0100
> From: Jerome Marchand
> To: Sergey Senozhatsky , Minchan Kim
>
> CC: Andrew Morton ,
> linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux...@kvack.org, Nitin Gupta
>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH
On 01/23/2015 03:24 PM, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> On (01/23/15 14:58), Minchan Kim wrote:
>> We don't need to call zram_meta_free, zcomp_destroy and zs_free
>> under init_lock. What we need to prevent race with init_lock
>> in reset is setting NULL into zram->meta (ie, init_done).
>> This patch
On (01/23/15 14:58), Minchan Kim wrote:
> We don't need to call zram_meta_free, zcomp_destroy and zs_free
> under init_lock. What we need to prevent race with init_lock
> in reset is setting NULL into zram->meta (ie, init_done).
> This patch does it.
>
> Signed-off-by: Minchan Kim
> ---
>
On 01/23/2015 06:58 AM, Minchan Kim wrote:
> We don't need to call zram_meta_free, zcomp_destroy and zs_free
> under init_lock. What we need to prevent race with init_lock
> in reset is setting NULL into zram->meta (ie, init_done).
> This patch does it.
>
> Signed-off-by: Minchan Kim
Acked-by:
On (01/23/15 14:58), Minchan Kim wrote:
We don't need to call zram_meta_free, zcomp_destroy and zs_free
under init_lock. What we need to prevent race with init_lock
in reset is setting NULL into zram-meta (ie, init_done).
This patch does it.
Signed-off-by: Minchan Kim minc...@kernel.org
On 01/23/2015 03:24 PM, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
On (01/23/15 14:58), Minchan Kim wrote:
We don't need to call zram_meta_free, zcomp_destroy and zs_free
under init_lock. What we need to prevent race with init_lock
in reset is setting NULL into zram-meta (ie, init_done).
This patch does it.
...@kvack.org, Nitin Gupta
ngu...@vflare.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] zram: free meta out of init_lock
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/31.3.0
On 01/23/2015 03:24 PM, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
On (01/23/15 14:58), Minchan Kim wrote:
We don't
On 01/23/2015 06:58 AM, Minchan Kim wrote:
We don't need to call zram_meta_free, zcomp_destroy and zs_free
under init_lock. What we need to prevent race with init_lock
in reset is setting NULL into zram-meta (ie, init_done).
This patch does it.
Signed-off-by: Minchan Kim minc...@kernel.org
We don't need to call zram_meta_free, zcomp_destroy and zs_free
under init_lock. What we need to prevent race with init_lock
in reset is setting NULL into zram->meta (ie, init_done).
This patch does it.
Signed-off-by: Minchan Kim
---
drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c | 28
We don't need to call zram_meta_free, zcomp_destroy and zs_free
under init_lock. What we need to prevent race with init_lock
in reset is setting NULL into zram-meta (ie, init_done).
This patch does it.
Signed-off-by: Minchan Kim minc...@kernel.org
---
drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c | 28
54 matches
Mail list logo
