On Mon, 2018-06-11 at 14:59 -0700, Ted Cabeen wrote:
> On 06/11/2018 02:40 PM, James Bottomley wrote:
> > On Mon, 2018-06-11 at 12:20 -0400, Douglas Gilbert wrote:
> > > I have also seen Aborted Command sense when doing heavy testing
> > > on one or more SAS disks behind a SAS expander. I put it
On Mon, 2018-06-11 at 17:56 -0400, Bryan Gurney wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 1:00 PM, Anthony Youngman
> wrote:
> > On 11/06/18 16:06, James Bottomley wrote:
> > > Well, this is the problem: a 4k logical (presumably 4k physical)
> > > drive cannot be addressed in block sectors that are not
On 06/11/2018 02:40 PM, James Bottomley wrote:
On Mon, 2018-06-11 at 12:20 -0400, Douglas Gilbert wrote:
I have also seen Aborted Command sense when doing heavy testing on
one or more SAS disks behind a SAS expander. I put it down to a
temporary lack of paths available (on the link between the
On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 1:00 PM, Anthony Youngman
wrote:
> On 11/06/18 16:06, James Bottomley wrote:
>> Well, this is the problem: a 4k logical (presumably 4k physical) drive
>> cannot be addressed in block sectors that are not divisible by 8. This
>> type of drive configuration is very unusual
[readd linux-scsi]
On Mon, 2018-06-11 at 14:43 -0700, Ted Cabeen wrote:
> On 06/11/2018 02:40 PM, James Bottomley wrote:
> > > I have also seen Aborted Command sense when doing heavy testing
> > > on one or more SAS disks behind a SAS expander. I put it down to
> > > a temporary lack of paths
On Mon, 2018-06-11 at 12:20 -0400, Douglas Gilbert wrote:
> On 2018-06-11 12:07 PM, Ted Cabeen wrote:
> > I'm seeing a similar behavior on my system, but across multiple
> > devices on a SAS drive array (front bays on a Supermicro-based
> > system with onboard mpt3sas card).
> > The Sense Key
That makes some sense to me. Sathya, Chaitra, and Suganath, is that a
change we should consider making to the MPT Fusion Drivers?
--Ted
On 06/11/2018 09:20 AM, Douglas Gilbert wrote:
I have also seen Aborted Command sense when doing heavy testing on one or
more SAS disks behind a SAS
On 11/06/18 16:06, James Bottomley wrote:
> Well, this is the problem: a 4k logical (presumably 4k physical) drive
> cannot be addressed in block sectors that are not divisible by 8. This
> type of drive configuration is very unusual (although it was something
> we tested years ago before the
On 2018-06-11 18:12:55 [+0100], John Garry wrote:
> On 11/06/2018 15:40, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> > This is the repost of the two patches I posted in earlier this month:
> >
> > - [PATCH 1/2] libsas: remove irq save in sas_ata_qc_issue()
> > Received feedback but nothing really
On 11/06/2018 15:40, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
This is the repost of the two patches I posted in earlier this month:
- [PATCH 1/2] libsas: remove irq save in sas_ata_qc_issue()
Received feedback but nothing really changed. I explained that this is
not about "local_irqsave() +
On 2018-06-11 12:07 PM, Ted Cabeen wrote:
I'm seeing a similar behavior on my system, but across multiple devices on a SAS
drive array (front bays on a Supermicro-based system with onboard mpt3sas card).
The Sense Key here doesn't show a medium error, and the multiple-drive behavior
makes me
I'm seeing a similar behavior on my system, but across multiple devices
on a SAS drive array (front bays on a Supermicro-based system with
onboard mpt3sas card). The Sense Key here doesn't show a medium error,
and the multiple-drive behavior makes me think it's more likely either a
controller
On Mon, 2018-06-11 at 11:18 -0400, Douglas Gilbert wrote:
> On 2018-06-11 11:06 AM, James Bottomley wrote:
> > On Mon, 2018-06-11 at 16:24 +0200, Sebastian Hegler wrote:
> > > Dear all,
> > >
> > > First off: sorry for cross-posting. I don't know if this is a
> > > RAID
> > > issue or a SCSI
On 2018-06-11 11:06 AM, James Bottomley wrote:
On Mon, 2018-06-11 at 16:24 +0200, Sebastian Hegler wrote:
Dear all,
First off: sorry for cross-posting. I don't know if this is a RAID
issue or a SCSI issue, so I'll just ask y'all.
For a RAID6 capacity upgrade (higher capacity drives), we
On Mon, 2018-06-11 at 16:24 +0200, Sebastian Hegler wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> First off: sorry for cross-posting. I don't know if this is a RAID
> issue or a SCSI issue, so I'll just ask y'all.
>
>
> For a RAID6 capacity upgrade (higher capacity drives), we bought some
> 10TB disks:
>
Looks good,
Reviewed-by: Johannes Thumshirn
--
Johannes Thumshirn Storage
jthumsh...@suse.de+49 911 74053 689
SUSE LINUX GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg
GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton
HRB 21284 (AG
Looks good,
Reviewed-by: Johannes Thumshirn
--
Johannes Thumshirn Storage
jthumsh...@suse.de+49 911 74053 689
SUSE LINUX GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg
GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton
HRB 21284 (AG
Dear all,
First off: sorry for cross-posting. I don't know if this is a RAID issue or a
SCSI issue, so I'll just ask y'all.
For a RAID6 capacity upgrade (higher capacity drives), we bought some 10TB
disks:
==
Apr 17 11:16:05 kuiper kernel: [12795386.862031] scsi 6:0:36:0:
In commit d2ba5675d899 ("[SCSI] qla2xxx: Disable local-interrupts while
polling for RISC status.") added a local_irq_disable() before invoking
the ->intr_handler callback. The function, which was used in this
callback, did not disable interrupts while acquiring the spin_lock so a
deadlock was
Since commit 312d3e56119a ("[SCSI] libsas: remove ata_port.lock
management duties from lldds") the sas_ata_qc_issue() function unlocks
the ata_port.lock and disables interrupts before doing so.
That lock is always taken with disabled interrupts so at this point, the
interrupts are already
This is the repost of the two patches I posted in earlier this month:
- [PATCH 1/2] libsas: remove irq save in sas_ata_qc_issue()
Received feedback but nothing really changed. I explained that this is
not about "local_irqsave() + spin_lock()" *but* "local_irq_save() +
spin_unlock()". This
21 matches
Mail list logo