On 2013年04月24日 22:13, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> Ah, you would've been running an old version of the bcache-testing branch...
>
> Someone else bisected a different bug to that commit, so that one's
> staying in the dev branch for now.
>
> I just pushed the allocator fix to the bcache-for-upstream branch, can
> you give that a try?
Yeah, I must seat on an old version.
Sure, will try and report back result.
>
> On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 12:49 PM, Jack Wang <jinpu.wang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> I revert this commit:
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/md/bcache/request.c b/drivers/md/bcache/request.c
>> index e5ff12e..2f36743 100644
>> --- a/drivers/md/bcache/request.c
>> +++ b/drivers/md/bcache/request.c
>> @@ -489,6 +489,12 @@ static void bch_insert_data_loop(struct closure *cl)
>> bch_queue_gc(op->c);
>> }
>>
>> + /*
>> + * Journal writes are marked REQ_FLUSH; if the original write was a
>> + * flush, it'll wait on the journal write.
>> + */
>> + bio->bi_rw &= ~(REQ_FLUSH|REQ_FUA);
>> +
>> do {
>> unsigned i;
>> struct bkey *k;
>> @@ -716,7 +722,7 @@ static struct search *search_alloc(struct bio *bio,
>> struct bcache_device *d)
>> s->task = current;
>> s->orig_bio = bio;
>> s->write = (bio->bi_rw & REQ_WRITE) != 0;
>> - s->op.flush_journal = (bio->bi_rw & REQ_FLUSH) != 0;
>> + s->op.flush_journal = (bio->bi_rw & (REQ_FLUSH|REQ_FUA)) != 0;
>> s->op.skip = (bio->bi_rw & REQ_DISCARD) != 0;
>> s->recoverable = 1;
>> s->start_time = jiffies;
>> diff --git a/drivers/md/bcache/super.c b/drivers/md/bcache/super.c
>> index 6817ea4..0932580 100644
>> --- a/drivers/md/bcache/super.c
>> +++ b/drivers/md/bcache/super.c
>> @@ -766,6 +766,8 @@ static int bcache_device_init(struct bcache_device
>> *d, unsigned block_size)
>> set_bit(QUEUE_FLAG_NONROT, &d->disk->queue->queue_flags);
>> set_bit(QUEUE_FLAG_DISCARD, &d->disk->queue->queue_flags);
>>
>> + blk_queue_flush(q, REQ_FLUSH|REQ_FUA);
>> +
>> return 0;
>> }
>>
>> the strange behaviour is gone. And I checked the bcache-testing, it does
>> not contain that commit any more, maybe I'm lost in the git tree update.
>> Anyway, thanks Kent for your kindly support.
>>
>> Jack
>>
>> On 2013年04月22日 21:15, Jack Wang wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> We've seen strange behaviour in bcache mode in current bcache-testing
>>> branch with Possible allocator fix:
>>>
>>> Once I start writing data with "dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/bcache0 bs=4k
>>> count=10000 oflag=sync", all SSDs in the Pool go close to 100% util and
>>> I see about 3600 writes/second in iostat for each disk in the pool, BUT
>>> no data written in means of throughput.
>>>
>>> Then after some seconds (the flush interval of bcache) I see the flush
>>> of the writeback and also data written to the pool SSDs which looks
>>> pretty much like reordering and merging happened for that data.
>>>
>>> bcache-3.2 does not have such problem.
>>> only bcache(master) and bcache-testing have such problem.
>>>
>>> What's the possible reason?
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Jack
>>>
>>
>> --
>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-bcache" in
>> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-bcache" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
