On Fri 13-05-16 12:29:10, Jens Axboe wrote:
> Thanks Jan, this is great and super useful! I'm revamping certain parts of
> it to deal with write back caching better, and I'll take a look at the
> regressions that you reported.
>
> What kind of SSD is this? I'm assuming it's SATA (QD=32), and then
On Fri 13-05-16 12:29:10, Jens Axboe wrote:
> Thanks Jan, this is great and super useful! I'm revamping certain parts of
> it to deal with write back caching better, and I'll take a look at the
> regressions that you reported.
>
> What kind of SSD is this? I'm assuming it's SATA (QD=32), and then
On 05/11/2016 10:36 AM, Jan Kara wrote:
On Tue 03-05-16 14:17:19, Jan Kara wrote:
The question remains how common a pattern where throttling of background
writeback delays also something else is. I'll schedule a couple of
benchmarks to measure impact of your patches for a wider range of
On 05/11/2016 10:36 AM, Jan Kara wrote:
On Tue 03-05-16 14:17:19, Jan Kara wrote:
The question remains how common a pattern where throttling of background
writeback delays also something else is. I'll schedule a couple of
benchmarks to measure impact of your patches for a wider range of
On Tue 03-05-16 14:17:19, Jan Kara wrote:
> The question remains how common a pattern where throttling of background
> writeback delays also something else is. I'll schedule a couple of
> benchmarks to measure impact of your patches for a wider range of workloads
> (but sadly pretty limited set of
On Tue 03-05-16 14:17:19, Jan Kara wrote:
> The question remains how common a pattern where throttling of background
> writeback delays also something else is. I'll schedule a couple of
> benchmarks to measure impact of your patches for a wider range of workloads
> (but sadly pretty limited set of
On Tue 03-05-16 09:42:40, Chris Mason wrote:
> On Tue, May 03, 2016 at 03:06:09PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> > On Tue 03-05-16 08:40:11, Chris Mason wrote:
> > > On Tue, May 03, 2016 at 02:17:19PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> > > > On Thu 28-04-16 12:46:41, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > > > > >>- rwb->wb_max
On Tue 03-05-16 09:42:40, Chris Mason wrote:
> On Tue, May 03, 2016 at 03:06:09PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> > On Tue 03-05-16 08:40:11, Chris Mason wrote:
> > > On Tue, May 03, 2016 at 02:17:19PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> > > > On Thu 28-04-16 12:46:41, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > > > > >>- rwb->wb_max
On Tue, May 03, 2016 at 03:06:09PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Tue 03-05-16 08:40:11, Chris Mason wrote:
> > On Tue, May 03, 2016 at 02:17:19PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> > > On Thu 28-04-16 12:46:41, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > > > >>- rwb->wb_max = 1 + ((depth - 1) >> min(31U, rwb->scale_step));
> >
On Tue, May 03, 2016 at 03:06:09PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Tue 03-05-16 08:40:11, Chris Mason wrote:
> > On Tue, May 03, 2016 at 02:17:19PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> > > On Thu 28-04-16 12:46:41, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > > > >>- rwb->wb_max = 1 + ((depth - 1) >> min(31U, rwb->scale_step));
> >
On Tue 03-05-16 08:40:11, Chris Mason wrote:
> On Tue, May 03, 2016 at 02:17:19PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> > On Thu 28-04-16 12:46:41, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > > >>- rwb->wb_max = 1 + ((depth - 1) >> min(31U, rwb->scale_step));
> > > >>- rwb->wb_normal = (rwb->wb_max + 1) / 2;
> > > >>-
On Tue 03-05-16 08:40:11, Chris Mason wrote:
> On Tue, May 03, 2016 at 02:17:19PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> > On Thu 28-04-16 12:46:41, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > > >>- rwb->wb_max = 1 + ((depth - 1) >> min(31U, rwb->scale_step));
> > > >>- rwb->wb_normal = (rwb->wb_max + 1) / 2;
> > > >>-
On Tue, May 03, 2016 at 02:17:19PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Thu 28-04-16 12:46:41, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > >>- rwb->wb_max = 1 + ((depth - 1) >> min(31U, rwb->scale_step));
> > >>- rwb->wb_normal = (rwb->wb_max + 1) / 2;
> > >>- rwb->wb_background = (rwb->wb_max + 3) / 4;
> > >>+ if
On Tue, May 03, 2016 at 02:17:19PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Thu 28-04-16 12:46:41, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > >>- rwb->wb_max = 1 + ((depth - 1) >> min(31U, rwb->scale_step));
> > >>- rwb->wb_normal = (rwb->wb_max + 1) / 2;
> > >>- rwb->wb_background = (rwb->wb_max + 3) / 4;
> > >>+ if
On Thu 28-04-16 12:46:41, Jens Axboe wrote:
> >>- rwb->wb_max = 1 + ((depth - 1) >> min(31U, rwb->scale_step));
> >>- rwb->wb_normal = (rwb->wb_max + 1) / 2;
> >>- rwb->wb_background = (rwb->wb_max + 3) / 4;
> >>+ if (rwb->queue_depth == 1) {
> >>+ rwb->wb_max = rwb->wb_normal =
On Thu 28-04-16 12:46:41, Jens Axboe wrote:
> >>- rwb->wb_max = 1 + ((depth - 1) >> min(31U, rwb->scale_step));
> >>- rwb->wb_normal = (rwb->wb_max + 1) / 2;
> >>- rwb->wb_background = (rwb->wb_max + 3) / 4;
> >>+ if (rwb->queue_depth == 1) {
> >>+ rwb->wb_max = rwb->wb_normal =
On 04/28/2016 05:54 AM, Jan Kara wrote:
On Wed 27-04-16 14:59:15, Jens Axboe wrote:
On Wed, Apr 27 2016, Jens Axboe wrote:
On Wed, Apr 27 2016, Jens Axboe wrote:
On 04/27/2016 12:01 PM, Jan Kara wrote:
Hi,
On Tue 26-04-16 09:55:23, Jens Axboe wrote:
Since the dawn of time, our background
On 04/28/2016 05:54 AM, Jan Kara wrote:
On Wed 27-04-16 14:59:15, Jens Axboe wrote:
On Wed, Apr 27 2016, Jens Axboe wrote:
On Wed, Apr 27 2016, Jens Axboe wrote:
On 04/27/2016 12:01 PM, Jan Kara wrote:
Hi,
On Tue 26-04-16 09:55:23, Jens Axboe wrote:
Since the dawn of time, our background
On 04/27/2016 10:06 PM, xiakaixu wrote:
diff --git a/lib/wbt.c b/lib/wbt.c
index 650da911f24f..322f5e04e994 100644
--- a/lib/wbt.c
+++ b/lib/wbt.c
@@ -98,18 +98,23 @@ void __wbt_done(struct rq_wb *rwb)
else
limit = rwb->wb_normal;
Hi Jens,
This statement 'limit =
On 04/27/2016 10:06 PM, xiakaixu wrote:
diff --git a/lib/wbt.c b/lib/wbt.c
index 650da911f24f..322f5e04e994 100644
--- a/lib/wbt.c
+++ b/lib/wbt.c
@@ -98,18 +98,23 @@ void __wbt_done(struct rq_wb *rwb)
else
limit = rwb->wb_normal;
Hi Jens,
This statement 'limit =
On Wed 27-04-16 14:59:15, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 27 2016, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 27 2016, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > > On 04/27/2016 12:01 PM, Jan Kara wrote:
> > > >Hi,
> > > >
> > > >On Tue 26-04-16 09:55:23, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > > >>Since the dawn of time, our background
On Wed 27-04-16 14:59:15, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 27 2016, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 27 2016, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > > On 04/27/2016 12:01 PM, Jan Kara wrote:
> > > >Hi,
> > > >
> > > >On Tue 26-04-16 09:55:23, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > > >>Since the dawn of time, our background
于 2016/4/28 4:59, Jens Axboe 写道:
> On Wed, Apr 27 2016, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 27 2016, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>> On 04/27/2016 12:01 PM, Jan Kara wrote:
Hi,
On Tue 26-04-16 09:55:23, Jens Axboe wrote:
> Since the dawn of time, our background buffered writeback has sucked.
于 2016/4/28 4:59, Jens Axboe 写道:
> On Wed, Apr 27 2016, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 27 2016, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>> On 04/27/2016 12:01 PM, Jan Kara wrote:
Hi,
On Tue 26-04-16 09:55:23, Jens Axboe wrote:
> Since the dawn of time, our background buffered writeback has sucked.
On Wed, Apr 27 2016, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 27 2016, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > On 04/27/2016 12:01 PM, Jan Kara wrote:
> > >Hi,
> > >
> > >On Tue 26-04-16 09:55:23, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > >>Since the dawn of time, our background buffered writeback has sucked.
> > >>When we do background
On Wed, Apr 27 2016, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 27 2016, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > On 04/27/2016 12:01 PM, Jan Kara wrote:
> > >Hi,
> > >
> > >On Tue 26-04-16 09:55:23, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > >>Since the dawn of time, our background buffered writeback has sucked.
> > >>When we do background
On Wed, Apr 27 2016, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 04/27/2016 12:01 PM, Jan Kara wrote:
> >Hi,
> >
> >On Tue 26-04-16 09:55:23, Jens Axboe wrote:
> >>Since the dawn of time, our background buffered writeback has sucked.
> >>When we do background buffered writeback, it should have little impact
> >>on
On Wed, Apr 27 2016, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 04/27/2016 12:01 PM, Jan Kara wrote:
> >Hi,
> >
> >On Tue 26-04-16 09:55:23, Jens Axboe wrote:
> >>Since the dawn of time, our background buffered writeback has sucked.
> >>When we do background buffered writeback, it should have little impact
> >>on
On 04/27/2016 12:01 PM, Jan Kara wrote:
Hi,
On Tue 26-04-16 09:55:23, Jens Axboe wrote:
Since the dawn of time, our background buffered writeback has sucked.
When we do background buffered writeback, it should have little impact
on foreground activity. That's the definition of background
On 04/27/2016 12:01 PM, Jan Kara wrote:
Hi,
On Tue 26-04-16 09:55:23, Jens Axboe wrote:
Since the dawn of time, our background buffered writeback has sucked.
When we do background buffered writeback, it should have little impact
on foreground activity. That's the definition of background
Hi,
On Tue 26-04-16 09:55:23, Jens Axboe wrote:
> Since the dawn of time, our background buffered writeback has sucked.
> When we do background buffered writeback, it should have little impact
> on foreground activity. That's the definition of background activity...
> But for as long as I can
Hi,
On Tue 26-04-16 09:55:23, Jens Axboe wrote:
> Since the dawn of time, our background buffered writeback has sucked.
> When we do background buffered writeback, it should have little impact
> on foreground activity. That's the definition of background activity...
> But for as long as I can
Hi,
Since the dawn of time, our background buffered writeback has sucked.
When we do background buffered writeback, it should have little impact
on foreground activity. That's the definition of background activity...
But for as long as I can remember, heavy buffered writers have not
behaved like
Hi,
Since the dawn of time, our background buffered writeback has sucked.
When we do background buffered writeback, it should have little impact
on foreground activity. That's the definition of background activity...
But for as long as I can remember, heavy buffered writers have not
behaved like
34 matches
Mail list logo
