On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 12:34:09PM +0100, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> > That hasn't been true for a long time when this code was commited, at least
> > on kernel supporting preadv/pwritev and/or aio.
>
> So what do you want to tell us? Should the patch be reverted?
Just looked into that area for a bug re
Am 18.03.2011 12:19, schrieb Christoph Hellwig:
> On Tue, Aug 03, 2010 at 04:44:30PM +0200, Kevin Wolf wrote:
>> Furthermore because the DMA operation is splitted into many synchronous
>> aio_read/write if there's more than one entry in the SG table, without this
>> patch the DMA would be cancelled
On Tue, Aug 03, 2010 at 04:44:30PM +0200, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> Furthermore because the DMA operation is splitted into many synchronous
> aio_read/write if there's more than one entry in the SG table, without this
> patch the DMA would be cancelled in the middle, something we've no idea if it
> happe
From: Andrea Arcangeli
The reason for not actually canceling the I/O is because with
virtualization and lots of VM running, a guest fs may mistake a
overload of the host, as an IDE timeout. So rather than canceling the
I/O, it's safer to wait I/O completion and simulate that the I/O has
completed
