Dan Aloni writes:
> I like your extension to the test program. I have a suggestion for
> the integration inside libaio's harness, since the original issue
> depended on the size of the ring buffer, let's have max_ios be picked
> from {ring->nr + 1, ring->nr - 1, ring->nr}*{1,2,3,4} for the variou
On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 02:43:56PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 11:51 AM, Dan Aloni wrote:
> >
> > Ben, seems that the test program needs some twidling to make the bug
> > appear still by setting MAX_IOS to 256 (and it still passes on a
> > kernel with the original patch
On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 03:06:12PM +, Elliott, Robert (Server Storage)
wrote:
> Using this version of the patch, I ran into this crash after 36
> hours of scsi-mq testing over the weekend.
...
>
> local_irq_save(flags);
> kcpu = this_cpu_ptr(ctx->cpu);
> kcpu->reqs_ava
> -Original Message-
> From: linux-kernel-ow...@vger.kernel.org [mailto:linux-kernel-
> ow...@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Benjamin LaHaise
> Sent: Friday, 22 August, 2014 11:27 AM
...
> Ah, that was missing a hunk then. Try this version instead.
>
...
> diff --git a/fs/aio.c b/fs/aio.
On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 02:05:31PM -0400, Benjamin LaHaise wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 09:51:10PM +0300, Dan Aloni wrote:
> > Ben, seems that the test program needs some twidling to make the bug
> > appear still by setting MAX_IOS to 256 (and it still passes on a
> > kernel with the original p
On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 02:43:56PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Ugh.
>
> Ben, at this point my gut feel is that we should just revert the
> original "fix", and you should take a much deeper look at this all.
> The original "fix" was more broken then the leak it purported to fix,
> and now the pa
On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 09:51:10PM +0300, Dan Aloni wrote:
> Ben, seems that the test program needs some twidling to make the bug
> appear still by setting MAX_IOS to 256 (and it still passes on a
> kernel with the original patch reverted). Under this condition the
> ring buffer size remains 128 (h
On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 11:51 AM, Dan Aloni wrote:
>
> Ben, seems that the test program needs some twidling to make the bug
> appear still by setting MAX_IOS to 256 (and it still passes on a
> kernel with the original patch reverted). Under this condition the
> ring buffer size remains 128 (here,
On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 12:26:30PM -0400, Benjamin LaHaise wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 07:15:02PM +0300, Dan Aloni wrote:
> > Sorry, I was waiting for a new patch from your direction, I should
> > have replied earlier. What bothered me about the patch you sent is that
> > completed_events is a
On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 07:15:02PM +0300, Dan Aloni wrote:
> Sorry, I was waiting for a new patch from your direction, I should
> have replied earlier. What bothered me about the patch you sent is that
> completed_events is added as a new field but nothing assigns to it, so I
> wonder how it can b
On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 12:01:11PM -0400, Benjamin LaHaise wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 08:46:51PM -0400, Benjamin LaHaise wrote:
> > You can trigger the behaviour with fio by using userspace event reaping.
> > Adding a test case for that behaviour to libaio would be a good idea.
>
> > I tho
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 08:46:51PM -0400, Benjamin LaHaise wrote:
> You can trigger the behaviour with fio by using userspace event reaping.
> Adding a test case for that behaviour to libaio would be a good idea.
> I thought about how to fix this, and it isn't actually that hard. Move
> the pu
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 08:14:26PM +0300, Dan Aloni wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 12:54:04PM -0400, Benjamin LaHaise wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 07:37:33PM +0300, Dan Aloni wrote:
> > > Some testing I've done today indicates that the original commit broke
> > > AIO with regard to users th
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 12:54:04PM -0400, Benjamin LaHaise wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 07:37:33PM +0300, Dan Aloni wrote:
> > Some testing I've done today indicates that the original commit broke
> > AIO with regard to users that overflow the maximum number of request
> > per IO context (where
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 07:37:33PM +0300, Dan Aloni wrote:
> Some testing I've done today indicates that the original commit broke
> AIO with regard to users that overflow the maximum number of request
> per IO context (where -EAGAIN is returned).
>
> In fact, it did worse - the attached C program
15 matches
Mail list logo
