On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 07:07:34PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
quoted text
> Oddly, I ran the entire suite of tests against a larger set of machines, and
> with Tejun's RFC patchset I didn't see nearly as much of an improvement.  I
> have been trying to put together a new tree based on "replace barrier with
> sequenced flush" and Christoph's "explicitly flush/FUA" patch sets, though I've
> gotten lost in the weeds. :(

Tejun's patches don't allow concurrent cache flushes to happen, while
my patch did.  Tejun said there are drivers that can't handly empty
flushes with a bio attached, making this nessecary.   

Tejun, any idea what drivers that would be?

quoted text
> I also experienced some sort of crash with Tejun's relaxed barrier patch on one
> of my systems.  I was hitting the BUG_ON in drivers/scsi/scsi_lib.c, line 1115.

My kernel source doesn't have a BUG_ON line there, but only one two
lines above.  A req->nr_phys_segments that's zero sounds a bit like
empty flush requests, I'll need to look into it again.

--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/