Re: [dm-devel] dm-writeboost testing

2013-10-05 Thread Akira Hayakawa
Mikulas, > The change seems ok. Please, also move this piece of code in flush_proc > out of the spinlock: > if (kthread_should_stop()) > return 0; > > It caused the workqueue warning I reported before and still causes warning > with kthread

Re: [dm-devel] dm-writeboost testing

2013-10-05 Thread Mikulas Patocka
On Sat, 5 Oct 2013, Akira Hayakawa wrote: > Mikulas, > > > nvidia binary driver, but it may happen in other parts of the kernel too. > > The fact that it works in your setup doesn't mean that it is correct. > You are right. I am convinced. > > As far as I looked around the kernel code, > it s

Re: [dm-devel] dm-writeboost testing

2013-10-05 Thread Akira Hayakawa
Mikulas, > nvidia binary driver, but it may happen in other parts of the kernel too. > The fact that it works in your setup doesn't mean that it is correct. You are right. I am convinced. As far as I looked around the kernel code, it seems to be choosing kthread when one needs looping in backgro

Re: [dm-devel] dm-writeboost testing

2013-10-04 Thread Mikulas Patocka
On Fri, 4 Oct 2013, Akira Hayakawa wrote: > Mikulas, > > Thanks for your pointing out. > > > The problem is that you are using workqueues the wrong way. You submit a > > work item to a workqueue and the work item is active until the device is > > unloaded. > > > > If you submit a work item

Re: [dm-devel] dm-writeboost testing

2013-10-04 Thread Joe Thornber
On Thu, Oct 03, 2013 at 10:27:54PM +0900, Akira Hayakawa wrote: > > dm-cache doesn't have this problem, if you overwrite the same piece of > > data again and again, it goes to the cache device. > > It is not a bug but should/can be optimized. > > Below is the cache hit path for writes. > writeb

Re: [dm-devel] dm-writeboost testing

2013-10-04 Thread Akira Hayakawa
Mikulas, Thanks for your pointing out. > The problem is that you are using workqueues the wrong way. You submit a > work item to a workqueue and the work item is active until the device is > unloaded. > > If you submit a work item to a workqueue, it is required that the work > item finishes i

Re: [dm-devel] dm-writeboost testing

2013-10-04 Thread Mikulas Patocka
On Fri, 4 Oct 2013, Akira Hayakawa wrote: > Hi, Mikulas, > > I am sorry to say that > I don't have such machines to reproduce the problem. > > But agree with that I am dealing with workqueue subsystem > in a little bit weird way. > I should clean them up. > > For example, > free_cache() routi

Re: [dm-devel] dm-writeboost testing

2013-10-03 Thread Akira Hayakawa
Hi, Mikulas, I am sorry to say that I don't have such machines to reproduce the problem. But agree with that I am dealing with workqueue subsystem in a little bit weird way. I should clean them up. For example, free_cache() routine below is a deconstructor of the cache metadata including all the

Re: [dm-devel] dm-writeboost testing

2013-10-03 Thread Akira Hayakawa
Hi, Mikulas, Thank you for reporting. I am really happy to see this report. First, I respond to the performance problem. I will make time later for investigating the rest and answer. Some deadlock issues are difficult to solve in short time. > I tested dm-writeboost with disk as backing device