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:
> > >
> > > >
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
11 matches
Mail list logo