On Fri, 2 Feb 2007 12:56:30 -0800 Andrew Vasquez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 01 Feb 2007, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > On Mon, 22 Jan 2007 10:35:10 -0800 Andrew Vasquez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Basically what is happening from the FC side is the initiator executes > > > a simple dt test: > > > > > > dt of=/dev/raw/raw1 procs=8 oncerr=abort bs=16k disable=stats > > > limit=2m passes=1000000 pattern=iot dlimit=2048 > > > > > > against a single lun (a very basic Windows target mode driver). > > > During the test a port-enable, port-disable script is running agains > > > the switch's port that is connected to the target (this occurs every > > > sixty seconds (for a disabled duration of 2 seconds). Additionally, > > > the target itself is set to LOGO (logout) or drop off the topology > > > every 30 seconds. > > > > I don't understand what effect the port-enable/port-disable has upon the > > system. Will it cause I/O errors, or what? > > No I/O errors should make there way to the upper-layers (block/FS). > The system *should* be shielded from the fibre-channel fabric events. > I just wanted to explain what the (basic sanity) test did. > > > > This test runs fine up to 2.6.19. > > > > One thing we did in there was to give direct-io-against-blockdevs some > > special-case bio-preparation code. Perhaps this is tickling a bug somehow. > > > > We can revert that change like this: > > > > > > diff -puN fs/block_dev.c~a fs/block_dev.c > > --- a/fs/block_dev.c~a > > +++ a/fs/block_dev.c > > @@ -196,8 +196,47 @@ static void blk_unget_page(struct page * > > pvec->page[--pvec->idx] = page; > > } > > > > +static int > > +blkdev_get_blocks(struct inode *inode, sector_t iblock, > > + struct buffer_head *bh, int create) > ... > > Hmm, with this patch we've noted two main differences: > > 1) I/O throughput with the basic 'dd' command used (above) is back to > 60MB/s, rather than the appalling 20-22 MB/s we were seeing with > 2.6.20-rcX. > > 2) No panics -- so far with 2+ hours of testing. With our vanilla > system of 2.6.20-rc7, the test could trigger the panic within 15 to > 20 minutes. > > We'll let this run over the weekend -- I'll certainly let you know if > anything has changed (failures). Oh crap, I didn't realise we had a performance regression as well. direct-io against a blockdev is kinda important for some people, so this is a must-fix for 2.6.20. I'll prepare a minimal patch to switch 2.6.20 back to the 2.6.19 codepaths. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
