Re: svn commit: r326731 - head/sys/ufs/ffs

2017-12-20 Thread Warner Losh
On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 1:32 PM, Mark Johnston wrote: > On Sat, Dec 09, 2017 at 10:14:50PM -0500, Mark Johnston wrote: > > On Sat, Dec 09, 2017 at 07:36:59PM -0700, Warner Losh wrote: > > > On Sat, Dec 9, 2017 at 11:03 AM, Andriy Gapon wrote: > > > > > > >

Re: svn commit: r326731 - head/sys/ufs/ffs

2017-12-20 Thread Mark Johnston
On Sat, Dec 09, 2017 at 10:14:50PM -0500, Mark Johnston wrote: > On Sat, Dec 09, 2017 at 07:36:59PM -0700, Warner Losh wrote: > > On Sat, Dec 9, 2017 at 11:03 AM, Andriy Gapon wrote: > > > > > On 09/12/2017 17:44, Mark Johnston wrote: > > > > Some GEOMs do not appear to handle

Re: svn commit: r326731 - head/sys/ufs/ffs

2017-12-09 Thread Mark Johnston
On Sat, Dec 09, 2017 at 07:36:59PM -0700, Warner Losh wrote: > On Sat, Dec 9, 2017 at 11:03 AM, Andriy Gapon wrote: > > > On 09/12/2017 17:44, Mark Johnston wrote: > > > Some GEOMs do not appear to handle BIO_ORDERED correctly, meaning that > > the > > > barrier write may not

Re: svn commit: r326731 - head/sys/ufs/ffs

2017-12-09 Thread Warner Losh
On Sat, Dec 9, 2017 at 11:03 AM, Andriy Gapon wrote: > On 09/12/2017 17:44, Mark Johnston wrote: > > Some GEOMs do not appear to handle BIO_ORDERED correctly, meaning that > the > > barrier write may not work as intended. There's a few places we send down a BIO_ORDERED

Re: svn commit: r326731 - head/sys/ufs/ffs

2017-12-09 Thread Warner Losh
On Sat, Dec 9, 2017 at 5:17 PM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > > In message p...@mail.gmail.com>, Warner Losh writes: > > >That would be strange given that BIO_ORDERED is @gibbs baby ? > > > >Nah... I wrote the

Re: svn commit: r326731 - head/sys/ufs/ffs

2017-12-09 Thread Poul-Henning Kamp
In message , Warner Losh writes: >That would be strange given that BIO_ORDERED is @gibbs baby ? > >Nah... I wrote the iosched code... and I find the concept somewhat flawed >since it is at the disk level, not the

Re: svn commit: r326731 - head/sys/ufs/ffs

2017-12-09 Thread Warner Losh
On Dec 9, 2017 4:27 PM, "Poul-Henning Kamp" wrote: In message , Warner Losh writes: >I also noticed that gsched doesn't take BIO_ORDERED into account when >sorting requests. Isilon has an I/O

Re: svn commit: r326731 - head/sys/ufs/ffs

2017-12-09 Thread Poul-Henning Kamp
In message , Warner Losh writes: >I also noticed that gsched doesn't take BIO_ORDERED into account when >sorting requests. Isilon has an I/O scheduler which has this problem >too > >I think the cam iosched ignores it

Re: svn commit: r326731 - head/sys/ufs/ffs

2017-12-09 Thread Warner Losh
On Dec 9, 2017 3:37 PM, "Mark Johnston" wrote: On Sat, Dec 09, 2017 at 08:03:37PM +0200, Andriy Gapon wrote: > On 09/12/2017 17:44, Mark Johnston wrote: > > Some GEOMs do not appear to handle BIO_ORDERED correctly, meaning that the > > Nitpick: this should be "geoms" or, even

Re: svn commit: r326731 - head/sys/ufs/ffs

2017-12-09 Thread Mark Johnston
On Sat, Dec 09, 2017 at 08:03:37PM +0200, Andriy Gapon wrote: > On 09/12/2017 17:44, Mark Johnston wrote: > > Some GEOMs do not appear to handle BIO_ORDERED correctly, meaning that the > > Nitpick: this should be "geoms" or, even better, "GEOM classes" :-) Ok. :) > > barrier write may not work

Re: svn commit: r326731 - head/sys/ufs/ffs

2017-12-09 Thread Andriy Gapon
On 09/12/2017 17:44, Mark Johnston wrote: > Some GEOMs do not appear to handle BIO_ORDERED correctly, meaning that the Nitpick: this should be "geoms" or, even better, "GEOM classes" :-) > barrier write may not work as intended. Could the loss of BIO_ORDERED in g_duplicate_bio() contribute to