From: James Simmons <jsimmons@infradead.org>
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Cc: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.com>, Oleg Drokin <oleg.drokin@intel.com>,
Andreas Dilger <andreas.dilger@intel.com>,
lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
lustre <lustre-devel@lists.lustre.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5 v2: 00/19] staging: lustre: use standard wait_event macros
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2018 18:06:01 +0000 (GMT) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.21.1801081805100.9942@casper.infradead.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180108163607.GA3046@kroah.com>
> On Mon, Jan 08, 2018 at 04:21:50PM +0000, James Simmons wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, Jan 08, 2018 at 02:28:13PM +1100, NeilBrown wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > > this is a revised version of the patch series I sent under a similar
> > > > subject in mid December.
> > > > Improvements are:
> > > > - new wait_event_idle* macros are now in include/linux/wait.h which
> > > > Ack from peterz.
> > > > - *all* waits are now TASK_IDLE or TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE and so don't
> > > > affect the load average. There is no need to choose whether load
> > > > is appropriate or not in each case.
> > > > - all l_wait_event() users are handled so l_wait_event() is
> > > > removed. The one case I had left out before uses
> > > > wait_event_idle_exclusive() with and option of using
> > > > wait_event_idle_exclusive_lifo() is that ever gets approved.
> > > >
> > > > I think this set is ready to go.
> > > > If you only review two patches, please review
> > > >
> > > > staging: lustre: simplify waiting in ldlm_completion_ast()
> > > > and
> > > > staging: lustre: remove back_to_sleep()
> > > >
> > > > as in both of those, the actual behaviour of the current code (as I
> > > > understand it) doesn't seem to agree with comments/debug message, or
> > > > just generally looks odd.
> > >
> > > This series broke the build, so I'll roll back my tree and drop it.
> > >
> > > Please fix it up and resend and test build it first...
> >
> > Please don't merge these just yet. They need to be tested first. I don't
> > want to be in a position where the lustre client is totally not usable
> > like in the past. That kind of breakage makes no one want to use the
> > lustre client. We have a test suite for these kinds of changes. Neill do
> > you know how to test your patches with the test suite? Also I have been
> > working on several things for the last 4 months to merge upstream. I like
> > to coordinate with you so we don't step on each others toes.
>
> If I don't hear anything for a few weeks, I merge patches. That should
> be long enough to test...
Agree. This patch set is only a few hours old.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-01-08 18:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 50+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-01-08 3:28 [PATCH 5 v2: 00/19] staging: lustre: use standard wait_event macros NeilBrown
2018-01-08 3:28 ` [PATCH 06/19] staging: lustre: introduce and use l_wait_event_abortable() NeilBrown
2018-01-17 15:30 ` James Simmons
2018-01-08 3:28 ` [PATCH 17/19] staging: lustre: remove l_wait_event from ptlrpc_set_wait NeilBrown
2018-01-17 15:36 ` James Simmons
2018-01-08 3:28 ` [PATCH 02/19] staging: lustre: discard SVC_SIGNAL and related functions NeilBrown
2018-01-17 15:26 ` James Simmons
2018-01-08 3:28 ` [PATCH 07/19] staging: lustre: simplify l_wait_event when intr handler but no timeout NeilBrown
2018-01-17 15:29 ` James Simmons
2018-01-08 3:28 ` [PATCH 10/19] staging: lustre: simplify waiting in ptlrpc_invalidate_import() NeilBrown
2018-01-17 15:32 ` James Simmons
2018-01-08 3:28 ` [PATCH 03/19] staging: lustre: replace simple cases of l_wait_event() with wait_event() NeilBrown
2018-01-17 15:27 ` James Simmons
2018-01-08 3:28 ` [PATCH 14/19] staging: lustre: improve waiting in sptlrpc_req_refresh_ctx NeilBrown
2018-01-17 15:34 ` James Simmons
2018-01-08 3:28 ` [PATCH 05/19] staging: lustre: use wait_event_idle_timeout() where appropriate NeilBrown
2018-01-17 15:27 ` James Simmons
2018-01-08 3:28 ` [PATCH 01/19] sched/wait: add wait_event_idle() functions NeilBrown
2018-01-17 15:26 ` James Simmons
2018-01-08 3:28 ` [PATCH 09/19] staging: lustre: open code polling loop instead of using l_wait_event() NeilBrown
2018-01-17 15:32 ` James Simmons
2018-01-08 3:28 ` [PATCH 12/19] staging: lustre: make polling loop in ptlrpc_unregister_bulk more obvious NeilBrown
2018-01-17 15:33 ` James Simmons
2018-01-08 3:28 ` [PATCH 11/19] staging: lustre: remove back_to_sleep() NeilBrown
2018-01-17 15:33 ` James Simmons
2018-01-08 3:28 ` [PATCH 13/19] staging: lustre: use wait_event_idle_timeout in ptlrpcd() NeilBrown
2018-01-17 15:34 ` James Simmons
2018-01-08 3:28 ` [PATCH 04/19] staging: lustre: discard cfs_time_seconds() NeilBrown
2018-01-08 16:52 ` James Simmons
2018-01-08 17:00 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2018-01-08 18:04 ` James Simmons
2018-01-09 8:24 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2018-01-17 15:29 ` James Simmons
2018-01-08 3:28 ` [PATCH 08/19] staging: lustre: simplify waiting in ldlm_completion_ast() NeilBrown
2018-01-17 15:31 ` James Simmons
2018-01-08 3:28 ` [PATCH 15/19] staging: lustre: use explicit poll loop in ptlrpc_service_unlink_rqbd NeilBrown
2018-01-17 15:35 ` James Simmons
2018-01-08 3:28 ` [PATCH 16/19] staging: lustre: use explicit poll loop in ptlrpc_unregister_reply NeilBrown
2018-01-17 15:35 ` James Simmons
2018-01-08 3:28 ` [PATCH 18/19] staging: lustre: replace l_wait_event_exclusive_head() with wait_event_idle_exclusive NeilBrown
2018-01-17 15:36 ` James Simmons
2018-01-08 3:28 ` [PATCH 19/19] staging: lustre: remove l_wait_event() and related code NeilBrown
2018-01-17 15:36 ` James Simmons
2018-01-08 14:59 ` [PATCH 5 v2: 00/19] staging: lustre: use standard wait_event macros Greg Kroah-Hartman
2018-01-08 16:21 ` James Simmons
2018-01-08 16:36 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2018-01-08 18:06 ` James Simmons [this message]
2018-01-09 8:25 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2018-01-09 1:44 ` NeilBrown
2018-01-17 15:24 ` James Simmons
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=alpine.LFD.2.21.1801081805100.9942@casper.infradead.org \
--to=jsimmons@infradead.org \
--cc=andreas.dilger@intel.com \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lustre-devel@lists.lustre.org \
--cc=neilb@suse.com \
--cc=oleg.drokin@intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).