On 12/10/19 1:33 AM, Chaitanya Kulkarni wrote: > On 12/04/2019 09:42 AM, Darrick J. Wong wrote: >> On Wed, Dec 04, 2019 at 09:26:52AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote: >>> On Wed, Dec 04, 2019 at 10:24:32AM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote: >>>> It'd be great to fix this universally in the kernel but it seems like >>>> that patch is in discussion for now, and TBH I don't see any real >>>> drawbacks to looping in mkfs - it would also solve the problem on any >>>> old kernel w/o the block layer change. >>> >>> The problem is that we throw out efficiency for no good reason. >> >> True... >> >>>> I'd propose that we go ahead w/ the mkfs change, and if/when the kernel >>>> handles this better, and it's reasonable to expect that we're running >> >> How do we detect that the kernel will handle it better? > >> >>>> on a kernel where it can be interrupted, we could remove the mkfs loop >>>> at a later date if we wanted to. >>> >>> I'd rather not touch mkfs if a trivial kernel patch handles the issue. >> >> Did some version of Tetsuo's patch even make it for 5.5? It seemed to >> call submit_bio_wait from within a blk_plug region, which seems way >> worse. >> > > It did not yet, I can ping on the series with reference to this discussion. That's fine, though I'm going to merge this patch in any case; we need a solution for kernels that are not bleeding-edge new as well. -eric
