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. 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. -- Jens Axboe
