On 11/12/15, 3:58 PM, Chris Leech wrote:
On Fri, Nov 06, 2015 at 09:52:57AM -0600, Michael Christie wrote:
Or and Shlomo, I am going to just revert the patch for now until I can
do some performance testing with a patch to add back correct locking
and also re-rerview the patch. Maybe instead of
On Fri, Nov 06, 2015 at 09:52:57AM -0600, Michael Christie wrote:
> Or and Shlomo, I am going to just revert the patch for now until I can
> do some performance testing with a patch to add back correct locking
> and also re-rerview the patch. Maybe instead of locks I can just use
> some kfifos
On 11/09/2015 07:40 AM, Guilherme G. Piccoli wrote:
> On 11/06/2015 01:52 PM, Michael Christie wrote:
>
>>> On Nov 5, 2015, at 6:56 PM, Chris Leech wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, Nov 05, 2015 at 02:33:44PM -0200, Guilherme G. Piccoli wrote:
>>>
>>> Interesting. From the trace, the
On 11/06/2015 01:52 PM, Michael Christie wrote:
On Nov 5, 2015, at 6:56 PM, Chris Leech wrote:
On Thu, Nov 05, 2015 at 02:33:44PM -0200, Guilherme G. Piccoli wrote:
Interesting. From the trace, the list debugging code is detecting
corruption when removing a task from some
> On Nov 5, 2015, at 6:56 PM, Chris Leech wrote:
>
> On Thu, Nov 05, 2015 at 02:33:44PM -0200, Guilherme G. Piccoli wrote:
>> Hello Shlomo and Or,
>>
>> I'm Guilherme Piccoli from LTC/IBM - firstly, sorry to bother you.
>>
>>
>> We are running some tests with iSCSI and we
Hello Shlomo and Or,
I'm Guilherme Piccoli from LTC/IBM - firstly, sorry to bother you.
We are running some tests with iSCSI and we found an issue caused
possibly by commit 659743b02c41 ("libiscsi: Reduce locking contention in
fast path").
After some time (+/- 1 hour) of testing with a
>>> Chris Leech schrieb am 06.11.2015 um 01:56 in Nachricht
<20151106005608.ga18...@straylight.hirudinean.org>:
[...]
> Am I missing something, or is splitting a linked list across two locks a
> major failing of this change?
[...]
Could you explain your question again for