Hi,
Just a heads-up that I'll be out on vacation next week, won't return
until 7/23. I'll still be checking email and collecting patches, but
responses will definitely be slower than usual, and non-urgent stuff
might be deferred until I'm back.
--
Jens Axboe
Hi Linus,
Just a single regression fix (from 4.17) for bsg, fixing an EINVAL
return on non-data commands.
Heads-up that I'll be out until 7/23 on vacation. Will still check
emails, but sporadically.
Please pull!
git://git.kernel.dk/linux-block.git tags/for-linus-20180713
When only io.max is in use, tg->target_latency is set to the default
value, if that's the case, bad_bio_cnt is not checking at all, so it
makes no sense to check latency and do bad_bio_cnt counting in
blk_throtl_bio_endio().
Signed-off-by: Liu Bo
---
block/blk-throttle.c | 5 +
1 file
On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 11:03:18PM +, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> How do you want to go forward from here? Do you prefer the approach of the
> patch I had posted (https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-block/msg26489.html),
> Jianchao's approach (https://marc.info/?l=linux-block=152950093831738) or
On Fri, 2018-07-13 at 12:47 -0600, Keith Busch wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 03:52:38PM +, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> > I think that behavior change even can trigger a kernel crash.
>
> I think we are past acknowledging issues exist with timeouts.
Hello Keith,
How do you want to go forward
Hi Ming & Jens,
On Fri, 2018-07-13 at 12:54 -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 7/12/18 5:29 PM, Ming Lei wrote:
> >
> > Maybe you can try the following patch from Christoph to see if it
> > makes a
> > difference:
> >
> > https://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel=153013977816825=2
>
> That's not a bad
On Fri, 2018-07-13 at 12:50 -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 7/13/18 12:00 PM, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > On 7/13/18 10:56 AM, Martin Wilck wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2018-07-12 at 10:42 -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hence the patch I sent is wrong, the code actually looks fine.
> > > > Which
> > >
On 7/13/18 2:48 PM, Martin Wilck wrote:
>> For all you know, the bug could be elsewhere and
>> we're just going to be hitting it differently some other way. The
>> head-in-the-sand approach is rarely a win long term.
>>
>> It's saving an allocation per IO, that's definitely measurable on
>> the
On Fri, 2018-07-13 at 12:00 -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 7/13/18 10:56 AM, Martin Wilck wrote:
> > On Thu, 2018-07-12 at 10:42 -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > >
> > > Hence the patch I sent is wrong, the code actually looks fine.
> > > Which
> > > means we're back to trying to figure out what is
On 7/12/18 5:29 PM, Ming Lei wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 10:36 PM, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
>> Hi Jens, Christoph,
>>
>> we're currently hunting down a silent data corruption occurring due to
>> commit 72ecad22d9f1 ("block: support a full bio worth of IO for
>> simplified bdev direct-io").
>>
On 7/13/18 12:00 PM, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 7/13/18 10:56 AM, Martin Wilck wrote:
>> On Thu, 2018-07-12 at 10:42 -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>>
>>> Hence the patch I sent is wrong, the code actually looks fine. Which
>>> means we're back to trying to figure out what is going on here. It'd
>>> be
On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 03:52:38PM +, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> No. What I'm saying is that a behavior change has been introduced in the block
> layer that was not documented in the patch description.
Did you read the changelog?
> I think that behavior change even can trigger a kernel crash.
On 7/13/18 10:56 AM, Martin Wilck wrote:
> On Thu, 2018-07-12 at 10:42 -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>
>> Hence the patch I sent is wrong, the code actually looks fine. Which
>> means we're back to trying to figure out what is going on here. It'd
>> be great with a test case...
>
> We don't have an
On Thu, 2018-07-12 at 10:42 -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
>
> Hence the patch I sent is wrong, the code actually looks fine. Which
> means we're back to trying to figure out what is going on here. It'd
> be great with a test case...
We don't have an easy test case yet. But the customer has confirmed
On Fri, 2018-07-13 at 09:43 -0600, Keith Busch wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 10:24:42PM +, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> > Before commit 12f5b9314545 ("blk-mq: Remove generation seqeunce"), if a
> > request completion was reported after request timeout processing had
> > started, completion
On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 10:24:42PM +, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> Before commit 12f5b9314545 ("blk-mq: Remove generation seqeunce"), if a
> request completion was reported after request timeout processing had
> started, completion handling was skipped. The following code in
>
On Thu, 2018-07-12 at 10:42 -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 7/12/18 10:20 AM, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > On 7/12/18 10:14 AM, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
> > > On 07/12/2018 05:08 PM, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > > > On 7/12/18 8:36 AM, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
> > > > > Hi Jens, Christoph,
> > > > >
> > > > > we're
17 matches
Mail list logo
