On Wed, Jun 22, 2022 at 06:50:29PM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote: > On 6/22/22 6:29 PM, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 22, 2022 at 04:27:07PM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote: > >> On Thu, 16 Jun 2022 14:22:07 -0700, Stefan Roesch wrote: > >>> This patch series adds support for async buffered writes when using both > >>> xfs and io-uring. Currently io-uring only supports buffered writes in the > >>> slow path, by processing them in the io workers. With this patch series it is > >>> now possible to support buffered writes in the fast path. To be able to use > >>> the fast path the required pages must be in the page cache, the required locks > >>> in xfs can be granted immediately and no additional blocks need to be read > >>> form disk. > >>> > >>> [...] > >> > >> Applied, thanks! > >> > >> [01/14] mm: Move starting of background writeback into the main balancing loop > >> commit: 29c36351d61fd08a2ed50a8028a7f752401dc88a > >> [02/14] mm: Move updates of dirty_exceeded into one place > >> commit: a3fa4409eec3c094ad632ac1029094e061daf152 > >> [03/14] mm: Add balance_dirty_pages_ratelimited_flags() function > >> commit: 407619d2cef3b4d74565999a255a17cf5d559fa4 > >> [04/14] iomap: Add flags parameter to iomap_page_create() > >> commit: 49b5cd0830c1e9aa0f9a3717ac11a74ef23b9d4e > >> [05/14] iomap: Add async buffered write support > >> commit: ccb885b4392143cea1bdbd8a0f35f0e6d909b114 > >> [06/14] iomap: Return -EAGAIN from iomap_write_iter() > >> commit: f0f9828d64393ea2ce87bd97f033051c8d7a337f > > > > I'm not sure /what/ happened here, but I never received the full V9 > > series, and neither did lore: > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-fsdevel/165593682792.161026.12974983413174964699.b4-ty@xxxxxxxxx/T/#t > > Huh yes, didn't even notice that it's missing a few. > > > As it is, I already have my hands full trying to figure out why > > generic/522 reports file corruption after 20 minutes of running on > > vanilla 5.19-rc3, so I don't think I'm going to get to this for a while > > either. > > > > The v8 series looked all right to me, but ********* I hate how our > > development process relies on such unreliable **** tooling. I don't > > Me too, and the fact that email is getting worse and worse is not making > things any better... > > > think it's a /great/ idea to be pushing new code into -next when both > > the xfs and pagecache maintainers are too busy to read the whole thing > > through... but did hch actually RVB the whole thing prior to v9? > > Yes, hch did review the whole thing prior to v9. v9 has been pretty > quiet, but even v8 didn't have a whole lot. Which is to be expected for > a v9, this thing has been going for months. <nod> > We're only at -rc3 right now, so I think it's fine getting it some -next > exposure. It's not like it's getting pushed tomorrow, and if actual > concerns arise, let's just deal with them if that's the case. I'll check > in with folks before anything gets pushed certainly, I just don't think > it's fair to keep stalling when there are no real objections. Nothing > gets pushed unless the vested parties agree, obviously. Ok. Would you or Stefan mind sending the whole v9 series again, so I can have one more look? Hopefully vger won't just eat the series a third time... :( Huh. Ok. LWN seems to have gotten the whole thing: https://lwn.net/ml/linux-mm/20220616212221.2024518-1-shr@xxxxxx/ I'll go read that in the meantime. $DEITY I hate email. --D > -- > Jens Axboe >
