On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 03:35:27PM +0300, Denis V. Lunev wrote:
> There are 2 deficiencies here:
> - mirror_iteration could start several requests inside. Thus we could
> simply have more in_flight requests than MAX_IN_FLIGHT.
> - keeping this in mind throttling in mirror_run which is checking
>
On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 03:35:27PM +0300, Denis V. Lunev wrote:
> There are 2 deficiencies here:
> - mirror_iteration could start several requests inside. Thus we could
> simply have more in_flight requests than MAX_IN_FLIGHT.
> - keeping this in mind throttling in mirror_run which is checking
>
On 22.06.2016 14:35, Denis V. Lunev wrote:
> There are 2 deficiencies here:
> - mirror_iteration could start several requests inside. Thus we could
> simply have more in_flight requests than MAX_IN_FLIGHT.
> - keeping this in mind throttling in mirror_run which is checking
> s->in_flight ==
On 06/29/2016 07:08 PM, Max Reitz wrote:
On 22.06.2016 14:35, Denis V. Lunev wrote:
There are 2 deficiencies here:
- mirror_iteration could start several requests inside. Thus we could
simply have more in_flight requests than MAX_IN_FLIGHT.
- keeping this in mind throttling in mirror_run
On 06/22/2016 03:35 PM, Denis V. Lunev wrote:
There are 2 deficiencies here:
- mirror_iteration could start several requests inside. Thus we could
simply have more in_flight requests than MAX_IN_FLIGHT.
- keeping this in mind throttling in mirror_run which is checking
s->in_flight ==
There are 2 deficiencies here:
- mirror_iteration could start several requests inside. Thus we could
simply have more in_flight requests than MAX_IN_FLIGHT.
- keeping this in mind throttling in mirror_run which is checking
s->in_flight == MAX_IN_FLIGHT is wrong.
The patch adds the check and
