Hi Jens,
On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 09:56:12AM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 08/15/2017 10:48 PM, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > Hi Jens,
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 10:17:09AM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
> >> On 08/14/2017 09:38 AM, Jens Axboe wrote:
> >>> On 08/14/2017 09:31 AM, Minchan Kim wrote:
>
On 08/15/2017 10:48 PM, Minchan Kim wrote:
> Hi Jens,
>
> On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 10:17:09AM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> On 08/14/2017 09:38 AM, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>> On 08/14/2017 09:31 AM, Minchan Kim wrote:
> Secondly, generally you don't have slow devices and fast devices
> intermingle
Hi Jens,
On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 10:17:09AM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 08/14/2017 09:38 AM, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > On 08/14/2017 09:31 AM, Minchan Kim wrote:
> >>> Secondly, generally you don't have slow devices and fast devices
> >>> intermingled when running workloads. That's the rare case.
>
On 08/14/2017 09:38 AM, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 08/14/2017 09:31 AM, Minchan Kim wrote:
>>> Secondly, generally you don't have slow devices and fast devices
>>> intermingled when running workloads. That's the rare case.
>>
>> Not true. zRam is really popular swap for embedded devices where
>> one of
On 08/14/2017 09:31 AM, Minchan Kim wrote:
>> Secondly, generally you don't have slow devices and fast devices
>> intermingled when running workloads. That's the rare case.
>
> Not true. zRam is really popular swap for embedded devices where
> one of low cost product has a really poor slow nand co
On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 09:14:03AM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 08/14/2017 09:06 AM, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 08:36:00AM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
> >> On 08/14/2017 02:50 AM, Minchan Kim wrote:
> >>> Hi Jens,
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 08:26:59AM -0600, Jens Axboe wr
On 08/14/2017 09:06 AM, Minchan Kim wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 08:36:00AM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> On 08/14/2017 02:50 AM, Minchan Kim wrote:
>>> Hi Jens,
>>>
>>> On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 08:26:59AM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
On 08/11/2017 04:46 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed,
On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 08:36:00AM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 08/14/2017 02:50 AM, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > Hi Jens,
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 08:26:59AM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
> >> On 08/11/2017 04:46 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Aug 09, 2017 at 08:06:24PM -0700, Dan Willia
On 08/14/2017 02:50 AM, Minchan Kim wrote:
> Hi Jens,
>
> On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 08:26:59AM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> On 08/11/2017 04:46 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>>> On Wed, Aug 09, 2017 at 08:06:24PM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
I like it, but do you think we should switch to sbvec[] t
Hi Jens,
On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 08:26:59AM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 08/11/2017 04:46 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 09, 2017 at 08:06:24PM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> >> I like it, but do you think we should switch to sbvec[] to
> >> preclude pathological cases where nr_pages
Hi Christoph,
On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 12:46:15PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 09, 2017 at 08:06:24PM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> > I like it, but do you think we should switch to sbvec[] to
> > preclude pathological cases where nr_pages is large?
>
> Yes, please.
Still, I don't
On 08/11/2017 04:46 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 09, 2017 at 08:06:24PM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
>> I like it, but do you think we should switch to sbvec[] to
>> preclude pathological cases where nr_pages is large?
>
> Yes, please.
>
> Then I'd like to see that the on-stack bio ev
On Wed, Aug 09, 2017 at 08:06:24PM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> I like it, but do you think we should switch to sbvec[] to
> preclude pathological cases where nr_pages is large?
Yes, please.
Then I'd like to see that the on-stack bio even matters for
mpage_readpage / mpage_writepage. Compared to
On Wed, Aug 09, 2017 at 08:04:33PM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 09, 2017 at 11:41:50AM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 08, 2017 at 07:31:22PM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > > On Wed, Aug 09, 2017 at 10:51:13AM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Aug 08, 2017 at 06:29
On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 8:04 PM, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 09, 2017 at 11:41:50AM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 08, 2017 at 07:31:22PM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>> > On Wed, Aug 09, 2017 at 10:51:13AM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
>> > > On Tue, Aug 08, 2017 at 06:29:04AM -0700,
On Wed, Aug 09, 2017 at 11:41:50AM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 08, 2017 at 07:31:22PM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 09, 2017 at 10:51:13AM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > > On Tue, Aug 08, 2017 at 06:29:04AM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Aug 08, 2017 at 05:49
On Wed, Aug 09, 2017 at 10:51:13AM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 08, 2017 at 06:29:04AM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 08, 2017 at 05:49:59AM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > > + struct bio sbio;
> > > + struct bio_vec sbvec;
> >
> > ... this needs to be sbvec[nr_pages], of
On Tue, Aug 08, 2017 at 07:31:22PM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 09, 2017 at 10:51:13AM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 08, 2017 at 06:29:04AM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > > On Tue, Aug 08, 2017 at 05:49:59AM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > > > + struct bio sbio;
>
On Tue, Aug 08, 2017 at 06:29:04AM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 08, 2017 at 05:49:59AM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > + struct bio sbio;
> > + struct bio_vec sbvec;
>
> ... this needs to be sbvec[nr_pages], of course.
>
> > - bio = mpage_alloc(bdev, blocks[0] << (blk
Hi Matthew,
On Tue, Aug 08, 2017 at 05:49:59AM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 08, 2017 at 03:50:20PM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > There is no need to use dynamic bio allocation for BDI_CAP_SYNC
> > devices. They can with on-stack-bio without concern about waiting
> > bio allocation fr
On Tue, Aug 08, 2017 at 05:49:59AM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> + struct bio sbio;
> + struct bio_vec sbvec;
... this needs to be sbvec[nr_pages], of course.
> - bio = mpage_alloc(bdev, blocks[0] << (blkbits - 9),
> + if (bdi_cap_synchronous_io(inode_to_bdi(inode
On Tue, Aug 08, 2017 at 03:50:20PM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
> There is no need to use dynamic bio allocation for BDI_CAP_SYNC
> devices. They can with on-stack-bio without concern about waiting
> bio allocation from mempool under heavy memory pressure.
This seems ... more complex than necessary?
There is no need to use dynamic bio allocation for BDI_CAP_SYNC
devices. They can with on-stack-bio without concern about waiting
bio allocation from mempool under heavy memory pressure.
Signed-off-by: Minchan Kim
---
fs/mpage.c | 43 +++
1 file changed, 4
23 matches
Mail list logo
