From: Mike Christie
This patch fixes this oops report by Guilherme Piccol:
list_del corruption. prev->next should be c00f3da2b080, but was
c00f3da2c080
[ cut here ]
WARNING: at lib/list_debug.c:59
CPU: 48 PID: 12033 Comm: fio-2.2.7 Not tainted
3.18.22-354.el7_1.
The bug is caused by this patch:
659743b02c411075b26601725947b21df0bb29c8
which allowed the task lists to be manipulated under different locks
in the xmit and completion path.
To fix the oops this patch just reverts that patch. It also reverts
these 2 patches for regressions that were also a
On 11/12/2015 06:03 AM, Sagi Grimberg wrote:
>
>> The bug is caused by this patch:
>>
>> 659743b02c411075b26601725947b21df0bb29c8
>>
>> which allowed the task lists to be manipulated under different locks
>> in the xmit and completion path.
>>
>> To fix the oops this patch just reverts that patch.
On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 4:03 AM, Sagi Grimberg wrote:
>
>> The bug is caused by this patch:
>>
>> 659743b02c411075b26601725947b21df0bb29c8
>>
>> which allowed the task lists to be manipulated under different locks
>> in the xmit and completion path.
>>
>> To fix the oops this patch just reverts th
On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 10:58 PM, Mike Christie wrote:
> On 11/12/2015 06:03 AM, Sagi Grimberg wrote:
>>> The bug is caused by this patch:
>>>
>>> 659743b02c411075b26601725947b21df0bb29c8
>>>
>>> which allowed the task lists to be manipulated under different locks
>>> in the xmit and completion pa
On 11/13/2015 09:06 AM, Or Gerlitz wrote:
>> The patch has caused multiple regressions, did not even compile when
>> > sent to me, and was poorly reviewed and I have not heard from you guys
>> > in a week. Given the issues the patch has had and the current time, I do
>> > not feel comfortable with
On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 6:51 PM, Mike Christie wrote:
> On 11/13/2015 09:06 AM, Or Gerlitz wrote:
>>> The patch has caused multiple regressions, did not even compile when
>>> > sent to me, and was poorly reviewed and I have not heard from you guys
>>> > in a week. Given the issues the patch has ha
> On Nov 15, 2015, at 4:10 AM, Or Gerlitz wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 6:51 PM, Mike Christie wrote:
>> On 11/13/2015 09:06 AM, Or Gerlitz wrote:
The patch has caused multiple regressions, did not even compile when
> sent to me, and was poorly reviewed and I have not heard from y
On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 7:30 PM, Michael Christie wrote:
>> On Nov 15, 2015, at 4:10 AM, Or Gerlitz wrote:
>> After the locking change, adding a task to any of the connection
>> mgmtqueue, cmdqueue, or requeue lists is under the session forward lock.
>>
>> Removing tasks from any of these lists
On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 7:30 PM, Michael Christie wrote:
>> On Nov 15, 2015, at 4:10 AM, Or Gerlitz wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 6:51 PM, Mike Christie wrote:
>>> On 11/13/2015 09:06 AM, Or Gerlitz wrote:
>> After the locking change, adding a task to any of the connection
>> mgmtqueue, cmd
On 11/18/15, 5:30 AM, Or Gerlitz wrote:
On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 7:30 PM, Michael Christie wrote:
On Nov 15, 2015, at 4:10 AM, Or Gerlitz wrote:
On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 6:51 PM, Mike Christie wrote:
On 11/13/2015 09:06 AM, Or Gerlitz wrote:
After the locking change, adding a task to any of
On 11/11/2015 11:05 PM, mchri...@redhat.com wrote:
> From: Mike Christie
>
> This patch fixes this oops report by Guilherme Piccol:
>
> list_del corruption. prev->next should be c00f3da2b080, but was
> c00f3da2c080
Hi Mike! I haven't seen any follow ups on this for a while. What is the
On 01/22/2016 10:50 AM, Brian King wrote:
> On 11/11/2015 11:05 PM, mchri...@redhat.com wrote:
>> From: Mike Christie
>>
>> This patch fixes this oops report by Guilherme Piccol:
>>
>> list_del corruption. prev->next should be c00f3da2b080, but was
>> c00f3da2c080
>
> Hi Mike! I haven't
- Original Message -
> On 09/11/2016 03:21, Chris Leech wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 07, 2016 at 04:23:10PM -0200, Guilherme G. Piccoli wrote:
> >>
> >> Sure! Count on us to test any patches. I guess the first step is to
> >> reproduce on upstream right? We haven't tested specifically this
> >> s
On 06/02/2017 15:27, Chris Leech wrote:
> - Original Message -
>> On 09/11/2016 03:21, Chris Leech wrote:
>>> On Mon, Nov 07, 2016 at 04:23:10PM -0200, Guilherme G. Piccoli wrote:
Sure! Count on us to test any patches. I guess the first step is to
reproduce on upstream right?
Hey Chris and Guilherme,
I'm indeed not responsive under this email address.
Thanks for the testing, looks like you have the magic target to reproduce this.
I think this verifies what Mike's idea of what was going wrong, and we're way
overdue to get this fixed upstream. Thanks to IBM for pus
Hi,
I'm kicking this old thread because I don't think this ever got
resolved. I wish I had more info, but it seems to involve target
specific behavior that hasn't come up in our test labs.
So what can I do at this point to help resolve this?
On Sun, Nov 15, 2015 at 12:10:48PM +0200, Or Gerlitz
On 11/07/2016 04:15 PM, Chris Leech wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm kicking this old thread because I don't think this ever got
> resolved. I wish I had more info, but it seems to involve target
> specific behavior that hasn't come up in our test labs.
Thanks very much for reopening this thread! We have th
On Mon, Nov 07, 2016 at 04:23:10PM -0200, Guilherme G. Piccoli wrote:
>
> Sure! Count on us to test any patches. I guess the first step is to
> reproduce on upstream right? We haven't tested specifically this
> scenario for long time. Will try to reproduce on 4.9-rc4 and update here.
Great, I'm lo
On 11/09/2016 03:21 AM, Chris Leech wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 07, 2016 at 04:23:10PM -0200, Guilherme G. Piccoli wrote:
>>
>> Sure! Count on us to test any patches. I guess the first step is to
>> reproduce on upstream right? We haven't tested specifically this
>> scenario for long time. Will try to rep
20 matches
Mail list logo
