From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jan Kara Subject: Re: ext4 out of order when use cfq scheduler Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2016 13:17:32 +0100 Message-ID: <20160324121732.GE4025@quack.suse.cz> References: <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 Cc: Jan Kara , Theodore Ts'o , "linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org" , "Li, Michael" To: "HUANG Weller (CM/ESW12-CN)" Return-path: Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:57768 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751421AbcCXMRF (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Mar 2016 08:17:05 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu 24-03-16 10:16:05, HUANG Weller (CM/ESW12-CN) wrote: > > > > 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. Thanks for testing! I'll submit those patches once I verify there is some performance gain in only waiting... Honza -- Jan Kara SUSE Labs, CR