Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 16 of 16

Thread: Blk-mq Is Almost Feature Complete & Fast With Linux 3.16

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by macemoneta View Post
    I'm familiar with the process, but it takes days, sometimes over a week for the problem to occur. By the time I completed a bisect, 3.17 would be out. Odds are, someone will have corrected the issue, intentionally or not, by then.
    Or it'll never get fixed, because nobody takes the time to put in the effort to reproduce it. Developer resources are scarce. Betting that "someone else will have fixed it" is a weak and losing proposition. Chances are it'll still be around come 3.17 and you will still be complaining about it.

    If you (or someone in the know) has an idea where the problem might be, you could drastically reduce the number of cycles needed.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    56

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by axboe View Post
    Or it'll never get fixed, because nobody takes the time to put in the effort to reproduce it. Developer resources are scarce. Betting that "someone else will have fixed it" is a weak and losing proposition. Chances are it'll still be around come 3.17 and you will still be complaining about it.

    If you (or someone in the know) has an idea where the problem might be, you could drastically reduce the number of cycles needed.
    Not complaining, noting it (as others are as well). I do contribute my time where it's cost effective; this is an instance where I've determined that it's not. That's a decision I get to make, not you. Time is a finite resource.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by macemoneta View Post
    Not complaining, noting it (as others are as well). I do contribute my time where it's cost effective; this is an instance where I've determined that it's not. That's a decision I get to make, not you. Time is a finite resource.
    Then stop pontificating that some random issue (that takes a week to reproduce, and that you are not willing to help get fixed) has anything to do with blk-mq, when you really have no idea if that is the case. If you're not running your storage on virtio-blk, then that is provably not the case. Spreading misinformation like that does a lot more harm than good, it'd be a lot more valuable to figure out what is actually causing the issue instead of potentially sending others off on a wild goose chase. Time is indeed a finite resource, please don't waste the time of others. You have already wasted plenty of mine. Time that could have been used pointing you in the right directions, or helping you get closer to a resolution. Unless there's some substantial information posted that could help resolve this issue, I'm done with this thread.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    457

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by axboe View Post
    Then stop pontificating that some random issue (that takes a week to reproduce, and that you are not willing to help get fixed) has anything to do with blk-mq, when you really have no idea if that is the case. If you're not running your storage on virtio-blk, then that is provably not the case. Spreading misinformation like that does a lot more harm than good, it'd be a lot more valuable to figure out what is actually causing the issue instead of potentially sending others off on a wild goose chase. Time is indeed a finite resource, please don't waste the time of others. You have already wasted plenty of mine. Time that could have been used pointing you in the right directions, or helping you get closer to a resolution. Unless there's some substantial information posted that could help resolve this issue, I'm done with this thread.
    I tried to bisect on this old machine. My issue is consistently reproducible.

    http://www.mail-archive.com/linux-bt.../msg33728.html

    However, there are two issue's:

    - there are two batches of commit skipping involved. The first one is to ommit non-booting kernels and the second one to omit oops-ing kernels during boot.
    - mailing list has not responded with any clue's pointers / whatever

    I take it I could upload some data about the file but I have no idea how.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by axboe View Post
    What perf regression?
    I can't find it right now, but there were I/O tests here for 3.13, and it showed considerably lower perf than previous kernels, and the low perf continued with successive kernels (3.14, etc...).

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    105

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Caleb View Post
    I can't find it right now, but there were I/O tests here for 3.13, and it showed considerably lower perf than previous kernels, and the low perf continued with successive kernels (3.14, etc...).
    Maybe these?

    http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...3_kernel&num=2

    http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...13fs_hdd&num=4

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •