On 01/31/2017 01:55 PM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On Tue, 2017-01-31 at 13:34 -0800, Bart Van Assche wrote:
>> On Mon, 2017-01-30 at 17:38 -0800, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>> That's a known bug in mainline. Pull it into 4.10-rc6,
>>> or use my for-next where everything is already merged.
>>
>> Hello Jens,
On Tue, 2017-01-31 at 13:34 -0800, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On Mon, 2017-01-30 at 17:38 -0800, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > That's a known bug in mainline. Pull it into 4.10-rc6,
> > or use my for-next where everything is already merged.
>
> Hello Jens,
>
> With your for-next branch (commit c2e60b3a260
On Mon, 2017-01-30 at 17:38 -0800, Jens Axboe wrote:
> That's a known bug in mainline. Pull it into 4.10-rc6,
> or use my for-next where everything is already merged.
Hello Jens,
With your for-next branch (commit c2e60b3a2602) I haven't hit any block
layer crashes so far. The only issue I encoun
On 01/30/2017 05:38 PM, Jens Axboe wrote:
>
>
>> On Jan 30, 2017, at 5:12 PM, Bart Van Assche
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 2017-01-27 at 09:56 -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
On 01/27/2017 09:52 AM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
[ 215.724452] general protection fault: [#1] SMP
[ 215.725060]
> On Jan 30, 2017, at 5:12 PM, Bart Van Assche
> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 2017-01-27 at 09:56 -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>> On 01/27/2017 09:52 AM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
>>> [ 215.724452] general protection fault: [#1] SMP
>>> [ 215.725060] Call Trace:
>>> [ 215.725086] scsi_disk_put+0x2d/
On Fri, 2017-01-27 at 09:56 -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 01/27/2017 09:52 AM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> > [ 215.724452] general protection fault: [#1] SMP
> > [ 215.725060] Call Trace:
> > [ 215.725086] scsi_disk_put+0x2d/0x40
> > [ 215.725110] sd_release+0x3d/0xb0
> > [ 215.725137] __
On 01/27/2017 10:27 PM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On Wed, 2017-01-25 at 18:25 +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>> this series splits the support for SCSI passthrough commands from the
>> main struct request used all over the block layer into a separate
>> scsi_request structure that drivers that want
On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 09:27:53PM +, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> Have you considered to convert all block drivers to the new
> approach and to get rid of request.special? If so, do you already
> have plans to start working on this? I'm namely wondering wheter I
> should start working on this myse
On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 06:58:53PM +, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> Version 3 of the patch with title "block: split scsi_request out of
> struct request" (commit 3c30af6ebe12) differs significantly from v2
> of that patch that has been posted on several mailing lists. E.g. v2
> moves __cmd[], cmd an
On Wed, 2017-01-25 at 18:25 +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> this series splits the support for SCSI passthrough commands from the
> main struct request used all over the block layer into a separate
> scsi_request structure that drivers that want to support SCSI passthough
> need to embedded as th
On Fri, 2017-01-27 at 17:34 +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> this series splits the support for SCSI passthrough commands from the
> main struct request used all over the block layer into a separate
> scsi_request structure that drivers that want to support SCSI passthough
> need to embedded as th
Hi all,
this series splits the support for SCSI passthrough commands from the
main struct request used all over the block layer into a separate
scsi_request structure that drivers that want to support SCSI passthough
need to embedded as the first thing into their request-private data,
similar to h
On Fri, 2017-01-27 at 09:56 -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
> I have no idea what this is, I haven't messed with life time or devices
> or queues at all in that branch.
The srp-test software passes with kernel v4.9. Something must have changed.
I'll see whether I can find some time to look further into t
On Thu, 2017-01-26 at 18:22 -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
> What's your boot device? I've been booting this on a variety of setups,
> no problems observed. It's booting my laptop, and on SCSI and SATA as
> well. What is your root drive? What is the queue depth of it?
> Controller?
The boot device in my
On 01/27/2017 09:42 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 09:38:40AM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>> Ok, I'll repost what I have right now, which is on top of a merge
>>> of your block/for-4.11/next and your for-next from this morning
>>> my time.
>>
>> Perfect.
>
> At least I tried,
On 01/27/2017 09:52 AM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On Fri, 2017-01-27 at 01:04 -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> The previous patch had a bug if you didn't use a scheduler, here's a
>> version that should work fine in both cases. I've also updated the
>> above mentioned branch, so feel free to pull that as
On Fri, 2017-01-27 at 01:04 -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
> The previous patch had a bug if you didn't use a scheduler, here's a
> version that should work fine in both cases. I've also updated the
> above mentioned branch, so feel free to pull that as well and merge to
> master like before.
Booting ti
On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 09:38:40AM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > Ok, I'll repost what I have right now, which is on top of a merge
> > of your block/for-4.11/next and your for-next from this morning
> > my time.
>
> Perfect.
At least I tried, looks like the mail server is overloaded and crapped
ou
On 01/27/2017 09:34 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 09:27:02AM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> Feel free to repost it, I have no problem rebasing that branch as it's
>> standalone for now.
>
> Ok, I'll repost what I have right now, which is on top of a merge
> of your block/for-
On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 09:27:02AM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
> Feel free to repost it, I have no problem rebasing that branch as it's
> standalone for now.
Ok, I'll repost what I have right now, which is on top of a merge
of your block/for-4.11/next and your for-next from this morning
my time.
Btw
On 01/27/2017 09:23 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 09:21:46AM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> On 01/27/2017 09:17 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 09:11:14AM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
I've queued this up for 4.11. Since some of the patches had depende
On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 09:21:46AM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 01/27/2017 09:17 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 09:11:14AM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
> >> I've queued this up for 4.11. Since some of the patches had dependencies
> >> on changes in master since for-4.11/block
On 01/27/2017 09:17 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 09:11:14AM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> I've queued this up for 4.11. Since some of the patches had dependencies
>> on changes in master since for-4.11/block was forked, they are sitting
>> in a separate branch that has both
On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 09:11:14AM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
> I've queued this up for 4.11. Since some of the patches had dependencies
> on changes in master since for-4.11/block was forked, they are sitting
> in a separate branch that has both for-4.11/block and v4.10-rc5 pulled
> in first. for-ne
On Wed, Jan 25 2017, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> this series splits the support for SCSI passthrough commands from the
> main struct request used all over the block layer into a separate
> scsi_request structure that drivers that want to support SCSI passthough
> need to embedded as the
On 01/26/2017 11:40 PM, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 01/26/2017 06:22 PM, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> On 01/26/2017 06:15 PM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2017-01-26 at 17:41 -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
On 01/26/2017 05:38 PM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> I see similar behavior with the blk-mq-sched bra
On 01/26/2017 06:22 PM, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 01/26/2017 06:15 PM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
>> On Thu, 2017-01-26 at 17:41 -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>> On 01/26/2017 05:38 PM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
I see similar behavior with the blk-mq-sched branch of
git://git.kernel.dk/linux-block.git
On 01/26/2017 06:15 PM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On Thu, 2017-01-26 at 17:41 -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> On 01/26/2017 05:38 PM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
>>> I see similar behavior with the blk-mq-sched branch of
>>> git://git.kernel.dk/linux-block.git (git commit ID 0efe27068ecf):
>>> booting happen
On Thu, 2017-01-26 at 17:41 -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 01/26/2017 05:38 PM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> > I see similar behavior with the blk-mq-sched branch of
> > git://git.kernel.dk/linux-block.git (git commit ID 0efe27068ecf):
> > booting happens much slower than usual and I/O hangs if I run th
On 01/26/2017 05:38 PM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On Thu, 2017-01-26 at 16:50 -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> Clearly we are missing some requests. How do I setup dm similarly to
>> you?
>>
>> Does it reproduce without Christoph's patchset?
>
> Hello Jens,
>
> I see similar behavior with the blk-mq-sc
On Thu, 2017-01-26 at 16:50 -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
> Clearly we are missing some requests. How do I setup dm similarly to
> you?
>
> Does it reproduce without Christoph's patchset?
Hello Jens,
I see similar behavior with the blk-mq-sched branch of
git://git.kernel.dk/linux-block.git (git commi
On 01/26/2017 04:50 PM, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 01/26/2017 04:47 PM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
>> On Thu, 2017-01-26 at 16:26 -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>> What device is stuck? Is it running with an mq scheduler attached, or
>>> with "none"?
>>>
>>> Would also be great to see the output of /sys/block/*
On 01/26/2017 04:47 PM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On Thu, 2017-01-26 at 16:26 -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> What device is stuck? Is it running with an mq scheduler attached, or
>> with "none"?
>>
>> Would also be great to see the output of /sys/block/*/mq/*/tags and
>> sched_tags so we can see if the
On Thu, 2017-01-26 at 16:26 -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
> What device is stuck? Is it running with an mq scheduler attached, or
> with "none"?
>
> Would also be great to see the output of /sys/block/*/mq/*/tags and
> sched_tags so we can see if they have anything pending.
>
> From a quick look at th
On 01/26/2017 04:14 PM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On Thu, 2017-01-26 at 14:51 -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> That is exactly what it means, looks like that one path doesn't handle
>> that. You'd have to exhaust the pool with atomic allocs for this to
>> trigger, we don't do that at all in the normal I
On 01/26/2017 02:47 PM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> (gdb) list *(blk_mq_sched_get_request+0x310)
> 0x8132dcf0 is in blk_mq_sched_get_request (block/blk-mq-sched.c:136).
> 131 rq->rq_flags |= RQF_QUEUED;
> 132 } else
> 133
On Thu, 2017-01-26 at 14:12 -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 01/26/2017 02:01 PM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> > On Thu, 2017-01-26 at 13:54 -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > > Your call path has blk_get_request() in it, I don't have
> > > that in my tree. Is it passing in the right mask?
> >
> > Hello Jens,
On 01/26/2017 02:01 PM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On Thu, 2017-01-26 at 13:54 -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> Your call path has blk_get_request() in it, I don't have
>> that in my tree. Is it passing in the right mask?
>
> Hello Jens,
>
> There is only one blk_get_request() call in drivers/md/dm-mpat
On Thu, 2017-01-26 at 13:54 -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
> Your call path has blk_get_request() in it, I don't have
> that in my tree. Is it passing in the right mask?
Hello Jens,
There is only one blk_get_request() call in drivers/md/dm-mpath.c
and it looks as follows:
clone = blk_get_reque
On 01/26/2017 01:47 PM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On 01/26/2017 11:01 AM, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> On 01/26/2017 11:59 AM, h...@lst.de wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 11:57:36AM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
It's against my for-4.11/block, which you were running under Christoph's
patches. Maybe
On 01/26/2017 11:01 AM, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 01/26/2017 11:59 AM, h...@lst.de wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 11:57:36AM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>> It's against my for-4.11/block, which you were running under Christoph's
>>> patches. Maybe he's using an older version? In any case, should be
>
On 01/26/2017 11:59 AM, h...@lst.de wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 11:57:36AM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> It's against my for-4.11/block, which you were running under Christoph's
>> patches. Maybe he's using an older version? In any case, should be
>> pretty trivial for you to hand apply. Just en
On 01/26/2017 11:52 AM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On Thu, 2017-01-26 at 11:44 -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> I think this may be my bug - does the below help?
>
> Hello Jens,
>
> What tree has that patch been generated against? It does not apply
> cleanly on top of Christoph's tree:
>
> $ git checko
On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 11:57:36AM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
> It's against my for-4.11/block, which you were running under Christoph's
> patches. Maybe he's using an older version? In any case, should be
> pretty trivial for you to hand apply. Just ensure that .flags is set to
> 0 for the common ca
On Thu, 2017-01-26 at 11:44 -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
> I think this may be my bug - does the below help?
Hello Jens,
What tree has that patch been generated against? It does not apply
cleanly on top of Christoph's tree:
$ git checkout hch-block-pc-refactor
$ patch -p1 --dry-run -f -s <
~/Re\:_s
On 01/26/2017 11:29 AM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On Wed, 2017-01-25 at 18:25 +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> this series splits the support for SCSI passthrough commands from the
>> main struct request used all over the block layer into a separate
>> scsi_request structure that dri
On Wed, 2017-01-25 at 18:25 +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> this series splits the support for SCSI passthrough commands from the
> main struct request used all over the block layer into a separate
> scsi_request structure that drivers that want to support SCSI passthough
> need to e
Hi all,
this series splits the support for SCSI passthrough commands from the
main struct request used all over the block layer into a separate
scsi_request structure that drivers that want to support SCSI passthough
need to embedded as the first thing into their request-private data,
similar to h
Hi all,
this series splits the support for SCSI passthrough commands from the
main struct request used all over the block layer into a separate
scsi_request structure that drivers that want to support SCSI passthough
need to embedded as the first thing into their request-private data,
similar to h
On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 08:39:44AM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
> I'd like to get this in sooner rather than later, so I'll spend some
> time reviewing and testing it start this week. I'm assuming you are
> targeting 4.11 with this change, right?
Yes.
--
dm-devel mailing list
dm-devel@redhat.com
http
On 01/23/2017 08:29 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> this series splits the support for SCSI passthrough commands from the
> main struct request used all over the block layer into a separate
> scsi_request structure that drivers that want to support SCSI passthough
> need to embedded as
51 matches
Mail list logo
