On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 03:48:04PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 06:42:19AM -0400, Brian Foster wrote:
> > That wouldn't address the latency concern Dave brought up. That said, I
> > have no issue with this as a targeted solution for the softlockup issue.
> >
On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 09:04:55AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 09:07:14AM -0400, Brian Foster wrote:
> > Dave described the main purpose earlier in this thread [1]. The initial
> > motivation is that we've had downstream reports of soft lockup problems
> > in
On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 06:42:19AM -0400, Brian Foster wrote:
> That wouldn't address the latency concern Dave brought up. That said, I
> have no issue with this as a targeted solution for the softlockup issue.
> iomap_finish_ioend[s]() is common code for both the workqueue and
> ->bi_end_io()
On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 09:04:55AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 09:07:14AM -0400, Brian Foster wrote:
> > Dave described the main purpose earlier in this thread [1]. The initial
> > motivation is that we've had downstream reports of soft lockup problems
> > in
On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 09:07:14AM -0400, Brian Foster wrote:
> Dave described the main purpose earlier in this thread [1]. The initial
> motivation is that we've had downstream reports of soft lockup problems
> in writeback bio completion down in the bio -> bvec loop of
> iomap_finish_ioend()
On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 09:45:10AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 05:12:42PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 10:49:17AM -0400, Brian Foster wrote:
> > > cc Ming
> > >
> > > On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 10:42:03AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > > >
On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 05:12:42PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 10:49:17AM -0400, Brian Foster wrote:
> > cc Ming
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 10:42:03AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > > On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 11:48:41AM -0400, Brian Foster wrote:
> > > > On Mon,
On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 10:49:17AM -0400, Brian Foster wrote:
> cc Ming
>
> On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 10:42:03AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 11:48:41AM -0400, Brian Foster wrote:
> > > On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 04:04:17PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Aug
On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 12:01:07PM +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 10:49:17AM -0400, Brian Foster wrote:
> > cc Ming
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 10:42:03AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > > On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 11:48:41AM -0400, Brian Foster wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Aug 24,
On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 10:49:17AM -0400, Brian Foster wrote:
> cc Ming
>
> On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 10:42:03AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 11:48:41AM -0400, Brian Foster wrote:
> > > On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 04:04:17PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Aug
cc Ming
On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 10:42:03AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 11:48:41AM -0400, Brian Foster wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 04:04:17PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 10:28:23AM -0400, Brian Foster wrote:
> > > > Do I understand
On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 11:48:41AM -0400, Brian Foster wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 04:04:17PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 10:28:23AM -0400, Brian Foster wrote:
> > > Do I understand the current code (__bio_try_merge_page() ->
> > > page_is_mergeable())
On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 04:04:17PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 10:28:23AM -0400, Brian Foster wrote:
> > Do I understand the current code (__bio_try_merge_page() ->
> > page_is_mergeable()) correctly in that we're checking for physical page
> > contiguity and not
On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 10:28:23AM -0400, Brian Foster wrote:
> Do I understand the current code (__bio_try_merge_page() ->
> page_is_mergeable()) correctly in that we're checking for physical page
> contiguity and not necessarily requiring a new bio_vec per physical
> page?
Yes.
> With regard
On Sat, Aug 22, 2020 at 02:13:12PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 22, 2020 at 07:53:58AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > but iomap only allows BIO_MAX_PAGES when creating the bio. And:
> >
> > #define BIO_MAX_PAGES 256
> >
> > So even on a 64k page machine, we should not be
On Sat, Aug 22, 2020 at 07:53:58AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> but iomap only allows BIO_MAX_PAGES when creating the bio. And:
>
> #define BIO_MAX_PAGES 256
>
> So even on a 64k page machine, we should not be building a bio with
> more than 16MB of data in it. So how are we getting 4GB of data
On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 10:15:33AM +0530, Ritesh Harjani wrote:
> Hello Dave,
>
> Thanks for reviewing this.
>
> On 8/21/20 4:41 AM, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 03:58:41PM +0530, Anju T Sudhakar wrote:
> > > From: Ritesh Harjani
> > >
> > > __bio_try_merge_page() may return
On 8/21/20 12:07 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 03:58:41PM +0530, Anju T Sudhakar wrote:
>> From: Ritesh Harjani
>>
>> __bio_try_merge_page() may return same_page = 1 and merged = 0.
>> This could happen when bio->bi_iter.bi_size + len > UINT_MAX.
>> Handle this case in
On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 03:58:41PM +0530, Anju T Sudhakar wrote:
> __bio_try_merge_page() may return same_page = 1 and merged = 0.
> This could happen when bio->bi_iter.bi_size + len > UINT_MAX.
> Handle this case in iomap_add_to_ioend() by incrementing write_count.
One of the patches I have
On 8/21/20 11:30 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 10:15:33AM +0530, Ritesh Harjani wrote:
Please correct me here, but as I see, bio has only these two limits
which it checks for adding page to bio. It doesn't check for limits
of /sys/block//queue/* no? I guess then it
On 8/21/20 11:37 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 03:58:41PM +0530, Anju T Sudhakar wrote:
From: Ritesh Harjani
__bio_try_merge_page() may return same_page = 1 and merged = 0.
This could happen when bio->bi_iter.bi_size + len > UINT_MAX.
Handle this case in
On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 03:58:41PM +0530, Anju T Sudhakar wrote:
> From: Ritesh Harjani
>
> __bio_try_merge_page() may return same_page = 1 and merged = 0.
> This could happen when bio->bi_iter.bi_size + len > UINT_MAX.
> Handle this case in iomap_add_to_ioend() by incrementing write_count.
>
On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 09:11:40AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 03:58:41PM +0530, Anju T Sudhakar wrote:
> > From: Ritesh Harjani
> >
> > __bio_try_merge_page() may return same_page = 1 and merged = 0.
> > This could happen when bio->bi_iter.bi_size + len > UINT_MAX.
>
On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 10:15:33AM +0530, Ritesh Harjani wrote:
> Please correct me here, but as I see, bio has only these two limits
> which it checks for adding page to bio. It doesn't check for limits
> of /sys/block//queue/* no? I guess then it could be checked
> by block layer below b4
Hello Dave,
Thanks for reviewing this.
On 8/21/20 4:41 AM, Dave Chinner wrote:
On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 03:58:41PM +0530, Anju T Sudhakar wrote:
From: Ritesh Harjani
__bio_try_merge_page() may return same_page = 1 and merged = 0.
This could happen when bio->bi_iter.bi_size + len > UINT_MAX.
On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 03:58:41PM +0530, Anju T Sudhakar wrote:
> From: Ritesh Harjani
>
> __bio_try_merge_page() may return same_page = 1 and merged = 0.
> This could happen when bio->bi_iter.bi_size + len > UINT_MAX.
Ummm, silly question, but exactly how are we getting a bio that
large in
26 matches
Mail list logo
