[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100819085349.GA8782@infradead.org>
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2010 04:53:49 -0400
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...ibm.com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>, Ted Ts'o <tytso@....edu>,
Mingming Cao <cmm@...ibm.com>,
Ric Wheeler <rwheeler@...hat.com>,
linux-ext4 <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Keith Mannthey <kmannth@...ibm.com>,
Mingming Cao <mcao@...ibm.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC v3] ext4: Combine barrier requests coming from fsync
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 07:07:34PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> Oddly, I ran the entire suite of tests against a larger set of machines, and
> with Tejun's RFC patchset I didn't see nearly as much of an improvement. I
> have been trying to put together a new tree based on "replace barrier with
> sequenced flush" and Christoph's "explicitly flush/FUA" patch sets, though I've
> gotten lost in the weeds. :(
Tejun's patches don't allow concurrent cache flushes to happen, while
my patch did. Tejun said there are drivers that can't handly empty
flushes with a bio attached, making this nessecary.
Tejun, any idea what drivers that would be?
> I also experienced some sort of crash with Tejun's relaxed barrier patch on one
> of my systems. I was hitting the BUG_ON in drivers/scsi/scsi_lib.c, line 1115.
My kernel source doesn't have a BUG_ON line there, but only one two
lines above. A req->nr_phys_segments that's zero sounds a bit like
empty flush requests, I'll need to look into it again.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists