From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.7 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,UNPARSEABLE_RELAY autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28A2EC54E4B for ; Mon, 11 May 2020 18:46:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1104D2075E for ; Mon, 11 May 2020 18:46:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1729798AbgEKSq0 (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 May 2020 14:46:26 -0400 Received: from bhuna.collabora.co.uk ([46.235.227.227]:54212 "EHLO bhuna.collabora.co.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727051AbgEKSqZ (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 May 2020 14:46:25 -0400 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (Authenticated sender: krisman) with ESMTPSA id 251DD2A13E8 From: Gabriel Krisman Bertazi 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 Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/2] Historical Service Time Path Selector Organization: Collabora References: <20200511163910.3778467-1-krisman@collabora.com> <20200511170235.GA7719@redhat.com> <85ftc6l7lb.fsf@collabora.com> <20200511173155.GA7892@redhat.com> <20200511184143.GA8274@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 11 May 2020 14:46:21 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20200511184143.GA8274@redhat.com> (Mike Snitzer's message of "Mon, 11 May 2020 14:41:43 -0400") Message-ID: <85blmul37m.fsf@collabora.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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