On Thu, 2005-07-14 at 22:27, Badari Pulavarty wrote:
> Daniel McNeil wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 2005-07-14 at 16:16, Badari Pulavarty wrote:
> >
> >>How does your patch ensures that we meet the driver alignment
> >>restrictions ? Like you said, you need atleast &
On Thu, 2005-07-14 at 16:39, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Daniel McNeil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Do drivers have problems with odd addresses or with
> > non-512 addresses?
>
> I do recall hearing rumours that some bus-masters have fairly strict memory
>
On Thu, 2005-07-14 at 16:16, Badari Pulavarty wrote:
> How does your patch ensures that we meet the driver alignment
> restrictions ? Like you said, you need atleast "even" byte alignment
> for IDE etc..
>
> And also, are there any restrictions on how much the "minimum" IO
> size has to be ? I mea
On Thu, 2005-07-14 at 11:23, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > That is exactly why I made this a separate patch, so that we
> > can test and find out where the problems are and work to fix
> > them.
>
> That's pretty hard because there are a lot of block drivers.
>
> And might not very nice for people's data
On Thu, 2005-07-14 at 06:18, Andi Kleen wrote:
> Daniel McNeil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > This patch relaxes the direct i/o alignment check so that user addresses
> > do not have to be a multiple of the device block size.
>
> The original reason for this
quest }
ide: failed opcode was: unknown
hda: drive not ready for command
Doing direct-io with user addresses on even, non-512 boundaries appears
to be working correctly.
Any additional testing and/or comments welcome.
Signed-off-by: Daniel McNeil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- linux-2.6
512 alignment). It even
make the code smaller:
textdata bss dec hex filename
7668 0 076681df4 direct-io.o original
7160 0 071601bf8 direct-io.o patched
Any additional testing and/or comments welcome.
Signed-off-by: Daniel McNeil
On Fri, 2005-04-01 at 17:27, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > --- linux-2.6.11.orig/fs/direct-io.c2005-04-01 15:33:11.0
> > -0800
> > > +++ linux-2.6.11/fs/direct-io.c 2005-03-31 16:59:15.0 -0800
> > > @@ -66,6 +66,7 @@ struct dio
On Fri, 2005-04-01 at 17:20, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Daniel McNeil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > I updated the patch to add an i_size element to the dio structure and
> > sample i_size during i/o submission. When i/o completes the result can
> > be truncat
eally ugly (since I have to adjust the
> iovec[]).
>
> Daniel McNeil wanted to take a stab at it. Dan what happend to the fix ?
>
> Thanks,
> Badari
I updated the patch to add an i_size element to the dio structure and
sample i_size during i/o submission. When i/o completes th
64 which has not been compiled.
It applies against the latest bk with some offset.
Signed-off-by: Daniel McNeil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
diff -urp linux-2.6.11.orig/arch/ppc64/mm/hugetlbpage.c
linux-2.6.11/arch/ppc64/mm/hugetlbpage.c
--- linux-2.6.11.orig/arch/ppc64/mm/hugetlbpage.c 200
When testing AIO on PPC64 (a power5 machine) running 2.6.11 with
CONFIG_HUGETLB_PAGE=y, I ran into a kernel panic when a process exits that has
done AIO (io_queue_init()) but has not done the io_queue_release(). The
exit_aio() code is cleaning up and panicing when trying to free the aio ring
bu
On Tue, 2005-03-08 at 11:18, Badari Pulavarty wrote:
> > Andrew, please don't apply the original patch. We shouldn't even attempt
> > to submit IO beyond the filesize. We should truncate the IO request to
> > filesize. I will send a patch today to fix this.
> >
>
> Well, spoke too soon. This is a
On Tue, 2005-03-08 at 11:18, Badari Pulavarty wrote:
> > Andrew, please don't apply the original patch. We shouldn't even attempt
> > to submit IO beyond the filesize. We should truncate the IO request to
> > filesize. I will send a patch today to fix this.
> >
>
> Well, spoke too soon. This is a
On Mon, 2005-01-24 at 16:58, Andrew Morton wrote:
> "Darrick J. Wong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Andrew Morton wrote:
> >
> > > So... Will someone be sending a new patch?
> >
> > Here's a cheesy patch that simply marks the ioctx as dead before
> > destroying it.
>
> super-cheesy, given
On Wed, 2005-01-19 at 09:28, Sami Farin wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 19, 2005 at 08:55:40AM -0800, Daniel McNeil wrote:
> > On Tue, 2005-01-18 at 18:31, Sami Farin wrote:
> ...
> > > I have Linux 2.6.10-ac9 + bio clone memory corruption -patch,
> > > and dio_bug does not g
On Tue, 2005-01-18 at 18:31, Sami Farin wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 18, 2005 at 05:22:44PM -0800, Daniel McNeil wrote:
> > Andrew,
> >
> > This is a patch to generic_file_buffered_write() to correctly
> > handle partial O_DIRECT writes (because of unallocated blocks)
> >
Andrew,
This is a patch to generic_file_buffered_write() to correctly
handle partial O_DIRECT writes (because of unallocated blocks)
when there is more than 1 iovec. Without this patch, the code is
writing the wrong iovec (it writes the first iovec a 2nd time).
Included is a test program dio_bug
18 matches
Mail list logo
