From: "HUANG Weller (CM/ESW12-CN)" Subject: RE: ext4 out of order when use cfq scheduler Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2016 10:16:05 +0000 Message-ID: References: <20160106100621.GA24046@quack.suse.cz> <3ab48fa47e434455b101251730e69bd2@SGPMBX1004.APAC.bosch.com> <20160107102420.GB8380@quack.suse.cz> <20160107114736.GC8380@quack.suse.cz> <20160313042723.GC29218@thunk.org> <20160314073928.GD5213@quack.suse.cz> <20160314143635.GM29218@thunk.org> <20160315104634.GG17942@quack.suse.cz> <20160315144633.GA12352@quack.suse.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Cc: "linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org" , "Li, Michael" To: Jan Kara , Theodore Ts'o Return-path: Received: from smtp6-v.fe.bosch.de ([139.15.237.11]:57799 "EHLO smtp6-v.fe.bosch.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754495AbcCXKQP convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Mar 2016 06:16:15 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20160315144633.GA12352@quack.suse.cz> Content-Language: en-US Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: > > OK, I have something - Huang, can you check whether the attached patches also > fix your data exposure issues please? The first patch is the original fix, patch two > is a cleanup, patches 3 and 4 implement the speedup suggested by Ted. Patches > are only lightly tested so far. I'll run more comprehensive tests later and in > particular I want to check whether the additional complexity actually brings us > some advantage at least for workloads which redirty pages in addition to writing > some new ones using delayed allocation. > Test done. Both targets(kernel 3.10.63) PASS the power loss test with 10,000 cycles. Test with io-scheduler CFQ.