On 01.11.19 14:30, Max Reitz wrote:
[...]
> So unless there are realistic guest benchmarks for ext4 that say we
> should keep the patch, I’m going to queue the revert for now (“now” =
> 4.1.1 and 4.2.0).
I found one case where the performance is significantly improved by
c8bb23cbdbe: In the case
On 01.11.19 14:36, Denis Lunev wrote:
> On 11/1/19 4:09 PM, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
>> 01.11.2019 15:34, Max Reitz wrote:
>>> On 01.11.19 12:20, Max Reitz wrote:
On 01.11.19 12:16, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
> 01.11.2019 14:12, Max Reitz wrote:
>> On 01.11.19 11:28
On 11/1/19 4:09 PM, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
> 01.11.2019 15:34, Max Reitz wrote:
>> On 01.11.19 12:20, Max Reitz wrote:
>>> On 01.11.19 12:16, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
01.11.2019 14:12, Max Reitz wrote:
> On 01.11.19 11:28, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
>>
On 01.11.19 13:34, Max Reitz wrote:
> On 01.11.19 12:20, Max Reitz wrote:
>> On 01.11.19 12:16, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
>>> 01.11.2019 14:12, Max Reitz wrote:
On 01.11.19 11:28, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
> 01.11.2019 13:20, Max Reitz wrote:
>> On 01.11.19 11:00, M
01.11.2019 15:34, Max Reitz wrote:
> On 01.11.19 12:20, Max Reitz wrote:
>> On 01.11.19 12:16, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
>>> 01.11.2019 14:12, Max Reitz wrote:
On 01.11.19 11:28, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
> 01.11.2019 13:20, Max Reitz wrote:
>> On 01.11.19 11:00, Ma
On 01.11.19 12:20, Max Reitz wrote:
> On 01.11.19 12:16, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
>> 01.11.2019 14:12, Max Reitz wrote:
>>> On 01.11.19 11:28, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
01.11.2019 13:20, Max Reitz wrote:
> On 01.11.19 11:00, Max Reitz wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Th
On 01.11.19 12:16, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
> 01.11.2019 14:12, Max Reitz wrote:
>> On 01.11.19 11:28, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
>>> 01.11.2019 13:20, Max Reitz wrote:
On 01.11.19 11:00, Max Reitz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This series builds on the previous RFC. The wo
01.11.2019 14:12, Max Reitz wrote:
> On 01.11.19 11:28, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
>> 01.11.2019 13:20, Max Reitz wrote:
>>> On 01.11.19 11:00, Max Reitz wrote:
Hi,
This series builds on the previous RFC. The workaround is now applied
unconditionally of AIO mode and fi
On 01.11.19 11:28, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
> 01.11.2019 13:20, Max Reitz wrote:
>> On 01.11.19 11:00, Max Reitz wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> This series builds on the previous RFC. The workaround is now applied
>>> unconditionally of AIO mode and filesystem because we don’t know those
>>> th
01.11.2019 13:20, Max Reitz wrote:
> On 01.11.19 11:00, Max Reitz wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> This series builds on the previous RFC. The workaround is now applied
>> unconditionally of AIO mode and filesystem because we don’t know those
>> things for remote filesystems. Furthermore, bdrv_co_get_self_req
On 01.11.19 11:00, Max Reitz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This series builds on the previous RFC. The workaround is now applied
> unconditionally of AIO mode and filesystem because we don’t know those
> things for remote filesystems. Furthermore, bdrv_co_get_self_request()
> has been moved to block/io.c.
>
Hi,
This series builds on the previous RFC. The workaround is now applied
unconditionally of AIO mode and filesystem because we don’t know those
things for remote filesystems. Furthermore, bdrv_co_get_self_request()
has been moved to block/io.c.
Applying the workaround unconditionally is fine f
12 matches
Mail list logo