From: John Hughes on
Andre Noll wrote:
> On 13:03, Jens Axboe wrote:
>
>
>> Our sync is currently broken in that regard, since it'll wait for too
>> long. We have a debated patch going, I have included it below. Any
>> chance you could give it a whirl?
>>
>
> That's the same patch you posted two weeks ago and on which Linus
> commented he thinks it is broken. He also proposed another, simpler
> patch (included below) which I'm running for a few days and which
> fixes the sync problem for me.
>
I've tried the "simpler patch" on my system and it makes no difference
for me.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo(a)vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
From: John Hughes on
Andre Noll wrote:
> On 15:55, John Hughes wrote:
>
>>> That's the same patch you posted two weeks ago and on which Linus
>>> commented he thinks it is broken. He also proposed another, simpler
>>> patch (included below) which I'm running for a few days and which
>>> fixes the sync problem for me.
>>>
>>>
>> I've tried the "simpler patch" on my system and it makes no difference
>> for me.
>>
>
> Does it make no difference to Jens' patch, or no difference to an
> unpatched kernel?
>
No difference to an unpatched kernel. I didn't think of stacking the
patches.
> BTW, switching from cfq to noop or deadline also improved things a
> bit for me.
>
Will try that.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo(a)vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/