From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Kent Overstreet Subject: Re: can't get bache's sequential_cutoff to work Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 17:14:31 -0700 Message-ID: <20130725001431.GA12364@kmo-pixel> References: <51EE9056.7030903@profihost.ag> <51EEDC73.5020101@profihost.ag> <51EEE805.7090200@profihost.ag> <51EEE9D9.7090207@profihost.ag> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <51EEE9D9.7090207-2Lf/h1ldwEHR5kwTpVNS9A@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-bcache-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Stefan Priebe Cc: Jack Wang , "linux-bcache-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" List-Id: linux-bcache@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 10:38:49PM +0200, Stefan Priebe wrote: > Mhm works directly on block device but not with XFS on top. That's odd... Do you suppose you could look at what blktrace says is going down? If you could compare what blktrace says is going to the bcache device with and without XFS, hopefully that'll show what's going wrong... Only thing I can think of that would cause it is for some reason XFS is sending bios down in the wrong order... which normally wouldn't be _too_ painful since both the elevator and the disk's cache will reorder the IOs, so I can see how that would slip by.