Hi Jianchao,
On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 11:05:35AM +0800, jianchao.wang wrote:
> Hi ming
>
> Sorry for delayed report this.
>
> On 01/17/2018 05:57 PM, Ming Lei wrote:
> > 2) hctx->next_cpu can become offline from online before
> > __blk_mq_run_hw_queue
> > is run, there isn't warning, but once th
Hi ming
Sorry for delayed report this.
On 01/17/2018 05:57 PM, Ming Lei wrote:
> 2) hctx->next_cpu can become offline from online before __blk_mq_run_hw_queue
> is run, there isn't warning, but once the IO is submitted to hardware,
> after it is completed, how does the HBA/hw queue notify CPU sin
On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 11:07:48AM +0100, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
>
>
> On 01/17/2018 10:57 AM, Ming Lei wrote:
> > Hi Jianchao,
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 04:09:11PM +0800, jianchao.wang wrote:
> >> Hi ming
> >>
> >> Thanks for your kindly response.
> >>
> >> On 01/17/2018 02:22 PM,
On 01/17/2018 11:07 AM, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
>
>
> On 01/17/2018 10:57 AM, Ming Lei wrote:
>> Hi Jianchao,
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 04:09:11PM +0800, jianchao.wang wrote:
>>> Hi ming
>>>
>>> Thanks for your kindly response.
>>>
>>> On 01/17/2018 02:22 PM, Ming Lei wrote:
This
On 01/17/2018 10:57 AM, Ming Lei wrote:
> Hi Jianchao,
>
> On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 04:09:11PM +0800, jianchao.wang wrote:
>> Hi ming
>>
>> Thanks for your kindly response.
>>
>> On 01/17/2018 02:22 PM, Ming Lei wrote:
>>> This warning can't be removed completely, for example, the CPU figured
>>
Hi Jianchao,
On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 04:09:11PM +0800, jianchao.wang wrote:
> Hi ming
>
> Thanks for your kindly response.
>
> On 01/17/2018 02:22 PM, Ming Lei wrote:
> > This warning can't be removed completely, for example, the CPU figured
> > in blk_mq_hctx_next_cpu(hctx) can be put on again
Hi ming
Thanks for your kindly response.
On 01/17/2018 02:22 PM, Ming Lei wrote:
> This warning can't be removed completely, for example, the CPU figured
> in blk_mq_hctx_next_cpu(hctx) can be put on again just after the
> following call returns and before __blk_mq_run_hw_queue() is scheduled
>
Hi Jianchao,
On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 01:24:23PM +0800, jianchao.wang wrote:
> Hi ming
>
> Thanks for your kindly response.
>
> On 01/17/2018 11:52 AM, Ming Lei wrote:
> >> It is here.
> >> __blk_mq_run_hw_queue()
> >>
> >> WARN_ON(!cpumask_test_cpu(raw_smp_processor_id(), hctx->cpumask)
Hi ming
Thanks for your kindly response.
On 01/17/2018 11:52 AM, Ming Lei wrote:
>> It is here.
>> __blk_mq_run_hw_queue()
>>
>> WARN_ON(!cpumask_test_cpu(raw_smp_processor_id(), hctx->cpumask) &&
>> cpu_online(hctx->next_cpu));
> I think this warning is triggered after the CPU o
Hi Jianchao,
On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 10:56:13AM +0800, jianchao.wang wrote:
> Hi ming
>
> Thanks for your patch and kindly response.
You are welcome!
>
> On 01/16/2018 11:32 PM, Ming Lei wrote:
> > OK, I got it, and it should have been the only corner case in which
> > all CPUs mapped to this
Hi ming
Thanks for your patch and kindly response.
On 01/16/2018 11:32 PM, Ming Lei wrote:
> OK, I got it, and it should have been the only corner case in which
> all CPUs mapped to this hctx become offline, and I believe the following
> patch should address this case, could you give a test?
>
>
On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 10:31:42PM +0800, jianchao.wang wrote:
> Hi minglei
>
> On 01/16/2018 08:10 PM, Ming Lei wrote:
> >>> - next_cpu = cpumask_next(hctx->next_cpu, hctx->cpumask);
> >>> + next_cpu = cpumask_next_and(hctx->next_cpu, hctx->cpumask,
> >>> +
Hi minglei
On 01/16/2018 08:10 PM, Ming Lei wrote:
>>> - next_cpu = cpumask_next(hctx->next_cpu, hctx->cpumask);
>>> + next_cpu = cpumask_next_and(hctx->next_cpu, hctx->cpumask,
>>> + cpu_online_mask);
>>> if (next_cpu >= nr_cpu_ids)
>>> -
Hi Jianchao,
On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 06:12:09PM +0800, jianchao.wang wrote:
> Hi Ming
>
> On 01/12/2018 10:53 AM, Ming Lei wrote:
> > From: Christoph Hellwig
> >
> > The previous patch assigns interrupt vectors to all possible CPUs, so
> > now hctx can be mapped to possible CPUs, this patch app
Hi Ming
On 01/12/2018 10:53 AM, Ming Lei wrote:
> From: Christoph Hellwig
>
> The previous patch assigns interrupt vectors to all possible CPUs, so
> now hctx can be mapped to possible CPUs, this patch applies this fact
> to simplify queue mapping & schedule so that we don't need to handle
> CPU
Ming or Christoph,
would you mind to send this patch to stable #4.12? Or is the fixes tag
enough to get this fixed in all related releases?
Regards,
Stefan
From: Christoph Hellwig
The previous patch assigns interrupt vectors to all possible CPUs, so
now hctx can be mapped to possible CPUs, this patch applies this fact
to simplify queue mapping & schedule so that we don't need to handle
CPU hotplug for dealing with physical CPU plug & unplug. With th
17 matches
Mail list logo
