From: "Darrick J. Wong" Subject: Re: [PATCH v7.1] block: Coordinate flush requests Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2011 22:41:49 -0800 Message-ID: <20110121064149.GH27381@tux1.beaverton.ibm.com> References: <20110113025646.GB27381@tux1.beaverton.ibm.com> <20110113074603.GC27381@tux1.beaverton.ibm.com> <20110115173211.GC27123@htj.dyndns.org> <20110120185057.GA4701@htj.dyndns.org> <20110120191341.GB4701@htj.dyndns.org> Reply-To: djwong@us.ibm.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Shaohua Li , Jens Axboe , "Theodore Ts'o" , Neil Brown , Andreas Dilger , Jan Kara , Mike Snitzer , linux-kernel , Keith Mannthey , Mingming Cao , linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, Ric Wheeler , Christoph Hellwig , Josef Bacik To: Tejun Heo Return-path: Received: from e6.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.146]:37162 "EHLO e6.ny.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750844Ab1AUGlx (ORCPT ); Fri, 21 Jan 2011 01:41:53 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110120191341.GB4701@htj.dyndns.org> Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 08:13:41PM +0100, Tejun Heo wrote: > On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 07:50:57PM +0100, Tejun Heo wrote: > > Hello, > > > > On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 09:12:55AM +0800, Shaohua Li wrote: > > > This makes sense. would it possible N flush data payloads delay the > > > first request? > > > > I ended up with a different design. Still buggy. It triggers a weird > > oops under stress test but other than that things generally seem to > > work as expected. Please read the comment at the top of blk-flush.c > > for more info. I'll post properly after more testing and debugging. > > The oops was caused by debugging code I put in (not posted together). > It runs fine without it, so if you have some time, please give it a > spin. Seems to run without incident on my storage test arrays. The fsync-happy performance numbers are comparable to previous iterations of flush patches. Looks good, thank you! --D