On Sat, 2018-01-27 at 21:03 -0500, Mike Snitzer wrote: > You cannot even be forthcoming about the technical merit of a change you > authored (commit 6077c2d70) that I'm left to clean up in the face of > performance bottlenecks it unwittingly introduced? If you were being > honest: you'd grant that the random delay of 100ms is utterly baseless > (not to mention that kicking the queue like you did is a complete > hack). So that 100ms delay is what my dm-4.16 commit is talking about. There are multiple errors in the above: 1. I have already explained in detail why commit 6077c2d70 is (a) correct and (b) essential. See e.g. https://www.redhat.com/archives/dm-devel/2018-January/msg00168.html. 2. With patch "blk-mq: Avoid that blk_mq_delay_run_hw_queue() introduces unintended delays" applied, there is nothing to clean up anymore since that patch eliminates the queue delays that were triggered by blk_mq_delay_run_hw_queue(). 3. You know that I'm honest. Suggesting that I'm not is wrong. 4. I never claimed that 100ms is the optimal value for the queue rerunning delay. I have already explained to you that I copied that value from older dm-rq code. > Don't project onto me Bart. This isn't the first time you've been > completely unprofessional and sadly it likely won't be the last. The only person who is behaving unprofessionally in this e-mail thread is you. Bart. -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
