From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Gabriel Krisman Bertazi Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/2] Historical Service Time Path Selector Date: Mon, 11 May 2020 14:46:21 -0400 Message-ID: <85blmul37m.fsf@collabora.com> References: <20200511163910.3778467-1-krisman@collabora.com> <20200511170235.GA7719@redhat.com> <85ftc6l7lb.fsf@collabora.com> <20200511173155.GA7892@redhat.com> <20200511184143.GA8274@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20200511184143.GA8274@redhat.com> (Mike Snitzer's message of "Mon, 11 May 2020 14:41:43 -0400") Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Mike Snitzer Cc: agk@redhat.com, dm-devel@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, song@kernel.org, breeves@redhat.com, mpatocka@redhat.com, khazhy@google.com, kernel@collabora.com List-Id: dm-devel.ids Mike Snitzer writes: > OK, that concall's issue had nothing to do with needing higher > resolution time (was about IOPs realized with requested-based vs > bio-based). > > Reality is, DM won't need anything higher resolution than jiffies until > block core's interfaces require something other than jiffies > (e.g. generic_end_io_acct). > > So feel free to proceed with the conditional time fetch solution you > were going to run with (prior to my previous mail asking you to hold > off). > > Sorry for the noise. Thanks, > Mike No problem, thanks for the information. I get started on it. -- Gabriel Krisman Bertazi