From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.4 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26C21C43381 for ; Mon, 1 Feb 2021 17:52:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E949964E9C for ; Mon, 1 Feb 2021 17:52:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S231402AbhBARwI (ORCPT ); Mon, 1 Feb 2021 12:52:08 -0500 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:52174 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S232531AbhBARv7 (ORCPT ); Mon, 1 Feb 2021 12:51:59 -0500 Received: by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4AC7764DD9; Mon, 1 Feb 2021 17:51:18 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1612201878; bh=neP8rf9Z7xpjegOXqfB5qwKnJSrQE0Nhm7F5KwaVuOc=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=fHlwIlkycPl3F4kzmB9u26QQLhHWEnBoTuHqdvm9hhpr+GH7wZjidC1QfsIqJfNm8 p7YGl7flSTVmMPPey92mICXUsQrWnLNGj4+qVQEw5eV9ER1Ts0oPmBuKId5BDcAE3I dn3q0HROtqMk4hyYmNbvPeOrKMJNQ+s4xflViDl86GygVSU8MmP3/0MZAf14KPO2yW NwD83bMHmzoJ1IKZmTcty9omORnKx7cq/YOskjiT8ZiADHwNYHO6CLgMGB4kR2ic50 UNYyY30DU4610I4k/eVMxlNYswjMIK68Z8f/PVT1reV86KKI24bjdsb6FFkbR3KikV poMmWY2+pWG1A== Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2021 09:51:17 -0800 From: "Darrick J. Wong" To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, avi@scylladb.com, Dave Chinner Subject: Re: reduce sub-block DIO serialisation v4 Message-ID: <20210201175117.GA7190@magnolia> References: <20210122162043.616755-1-hch@lst.de> <20210123185706.GG1282159@magnolia> <20210201165825.GB9858@lst.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20210201165825.GB9858@lst.de> Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Feb 01, 2021 at 05:58:25PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Sat, Jan 23, 2021 at 10:57:06AM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 05:20:32PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > This takes the approach from Dave, but adds a new flag instead of abusing > > > the nowait one, and keeps a simpler calling convention for iomap_dio_rw. > > > > Hm. I realized while putting together for-next branches that I really > > would have preferred the three iomap patches at the start so that I > > could push those parts through the iomap tree. The changes required to > > resequence the series is minor and the iomap changes (AFAICT) are inert > > if the calling fs doesn't set IOMAP_DIO_OVERWRITE_ONLY, so I think it's > > low risk to push the iomap changes into iomap-for-next as a 5.12 thing. > > > > The rest of the xfs patches in this series would form the basis of a > > second week pull request (or not) since I think I ought to evaluate the > > effects on performance for a little longer. > > So that is the reason why they aren't in for-next yet? Or do you want > the remaining patches resent on top of the iomap branch? Assuming they haven't changed, I'll just push the (slightly reordered) series out to for-next tomorrow. Sorry, I got totally sidetracked last week with the quota retry series nearly tripling in size with all the requested changes... :( --D