On 15/07/17 02:29, tang.junhui@zte.com.cn wrote:

Hello Eddie

One thing, please see below:

quoted

On 14/07/17 16:07, Coly Li wrote:

quoted

On 2017/7/14 下午7:40, Eddie Chapman wrote:

quoted

On 25/05/17 20:10, Eric Wheeler wrote:

quoted

Hi Jens,

Please pull these updates and bugfixes from the bcache community when you
have a minute.  If you need a rebase against something else then please
let me know and I would be happy to update for you.

Thank you for your help!

<snip>

Hi all,

(replying to all but as a subscriber to stable only)

I'm not a kernel coder but have several 4.4 (kernel.org stable series)
servers using bcache, so I'd love to see (possibly some of?) these in
4.4 if they are relevant and apply without any significant work needed.

This series was CC'd to stable but I don't see any info of how far back
any of them might be applicable, if at all.

If any of you guys are able to give a hint with this series just along
the lines of "this one is/is not applicable to 4.4" then I'm happy to
apply them, resolve any simple context issues, use, and report back with
clean patches.

(remove many unnecessary email receivers)

I'm re-adding the stable list to CC as we're discussing a stable kernel.
Hope that's OK.

quoted

Hi Eddie,

I think some patches from Junhui Tang are important stable fixes.
After all the patches get reviewed, and accepted in mainline kernel, you
may find them in 4.4 stable tree (any way it won't be very soon for
these fixes show up in stable tree).

Thanks.

Thanks for your reply Coly.  You're right, forgot about that. Before
they can go in 4.4 or any other stable kernel they must be in Linus' tree.

Of the 9 patches CC'd to stable, it looks to me that so far these 2 have
subsequently received approval by you plus at least 1 other person other
than the author (e.g. Christoph Hellwig):

- fix sequential large write IO bypass
- do not subtract sectors_to_gc for bypassed IO

The first one looks particularly important to me and Kent himself has
also reviewed it.

This one also has not received any objections yet and you mentioned you
discussed with the author and both concluded it is correct:

- Subtract dirty sectors of thin flash from cache_sectors in calculating
writeback rate

If you want to apply this patch, please also apply this patch to make
dirty sectors of thin flashInitializing correctly. Otherwise
it will subtract a wrong dirty sectors of thin flash.

-bcache: initialize stripe_sectors_dirty correctly for thin flash device

Thank you very much Tang for pointing this out.

I applied all 4 patches on top of vanilla kernel.org 4.4.77 . So they are:

- bcache: fix sequential large write IO bypass
- bcache: do not subtract sectors_to_gc for bypassed IO
- bcache: Subtract dirty sectors of thin flash from cache_sectors in calculating writeback rate
- bcache: initialize stripe_sectors_dirty correctly for thin flash device

They applied without any issues just some fuzz.
There were no issues during build, and I've been running 4.4.77 with 
these 4 patches on one server using bcache for 3 days now without any 
problems or any unusual logs from bcache in dmesg.

I will send another mail separately, as a reply to this one, with the 4 
patches with context adjusted, generated from patched 4.4.77 using diff -up, 
in case they are any use to anyone. Not sure if they are any use to you guys 
though as they are not generated with git-send-email, but anyway, FWIW.

Thanks,
Eddie

quoted

So for me these 3 by Junhui Tang seem "safe" enough that I will take a
little risk and try them already on 4.4 on my own machines (I'm guessing
they are likely relevant to 4.4 but of course I'll check if they apply).
I'll report back, FWIW.

If I'm brave (foolish) enough I might go through mainline bcache commits
since 4.4 and see if there are any other goodies to try out with 4.4. Of
course if anyone has any in particular to suggest to me to try, please
do! If I do, I'll report back anything that seems to have worked.

Thanks again!
Eddie
--

Thanks to use it.

Tang Junhui