Re: 答复: Re: [PATCH v2] scsi: Introduce sdev_printk_ratelimited to throttlefrequent printk

On (04/02/18 13:14), wen.yan...@zte.com.cn wrote: > >> It's true that this print for the same device is useless. But it's >> useful for different devices. Is it possible to limit the print only >> for the same device? > >In our scene, it's  just for the same device

Re: [PATCH v2] scsi: Introduce sdev_printk_ratelimited to throttle frequent printk

Hello, On (04/02/18 09:58), Wen Yang wrote: > There would be so many same lines printed by frequent printk if one > disk went wrong, like, > [ 546.185242] sd 0:1:0:0: rejecting I/O to offline device > [ 546.185258] sd 0:1:0:0: rejecting I/O to offline device > [ 546.185280] sd 0:1:0:0:

Re: 答复: Re: [PATCH] scsi: Replace sdev_printk with printk_deferred to avoid

On (03/28/18 10:29), wen.yan...@zte.com.cn wrote: >Hello Bart, > >We have a detailed discussion of the problem. >Sergey Senozhatsky, Petr and many people have made a lot of efforts about >it. >Please see this link: >https://bugzilla.kernel.org/s

Re: [Bug 199003] console stalled, cause Hard LOCKUP.

I'll Cc blockdev On (03/27/18 08:36), bugzilla-dae...@bugzilla.kernel.org wrote: > > --- Comment #17 from sergey.senozhatsky.w...@gmail.com --- > > On (03/26/18 13:05), bugzilla-dae...@bugzilla.kernel.org wrote: > > > Therefore the serial console is actually pretty fast. It seems that the > > >

Re: possible circular locking dependency detected [was: linux-next: Tree for Aug 22]

Hello Peter, On (08/30/17 10:47), Peter Zijlstra wrote: [..] > On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 10:42:07AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > > So the overhead looks to be spread out over all sorts, which makes it > > harder to find and fix. > > > > stack unwinding is done lots and is fairly expensive,

Re: possible circular locking dependency detected [was: linux-next: Tree for Aug 22]

Hi, On (08/30/17 14:43), Byungchul Park wrote: [..] > > notably slower than earlier 4.13 linux-next. (e.g. scrolling in vim > > is irritatingly slow) > > To Ingo, > > I cannot decide if we have to roll back CONFIG_LOCKDEP_CROSSRELEASE > dependency on CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING in Kconfig. With them

Re: possible circular locking dependency detected [was: linux-next: Tree for Aug 22]

On (08/23/17 09:03), Byungchul Park wrote: [..] > > Byungchul, did you add the crosslock checks to lockdep? Can you have a look > > at > > the above report? That report namely doesn't make sense to me. > > The report is talking about the following lockup: > > A work in a worker

Re: possible circular locking dependency detected [was: linux-next: Tree for Aug 22]

Hi, On (08/24/17 12:39), Boqun Feng wrote: > On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 02:55:17PM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote: > > On (08/23/17 13:35), Boqun Feng wrote: > > > > KERN_CONT and "\n" should not be together. "\n" flushes the cont > > > > buff

Re: possible circular locking dependency detected [was: linux-next: Tree for Aug 22]

On (08/23/17 13:35), Boqun Feng wrote: > > KERN_CONT and "\n" should not be together. "\n" flushes the cont > > buffer immediately. > > > > Hmm.. Not quite familiar with printk() stuffs, but I could see several > usages of printk(KERN_CONT "...\n") in kernel. > > Did a bit research myself, and

Re: possible circular locking dependency detected [was: linux-next: Tree for Aug 22]

On (08/23/17 13:35), Boqun Feng wrote: [..] > > > printk(KERN_CONT ");\n"); > > > > KERN_CONT and "\n" should not be together. "\n" flushes the cont > > buffer immediately. > > > > Hmm.. Not quite familiar with printk() stuffs, but I could see several > usages of printk(KERN_CONT

Re: possible circular locking dependency detected [was: linux-next: Tree for Aug 22]

On (08/23/17 12:38), Boqun Feng wrote: [..] > diff --git a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c > index 642fb5362507..a3709e15f609 100644 > --- a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c > +++ b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c > @@ -1156,6 +1156,23 @@ print_circular_lock_scenario(struct held_lock *src, >

Re: possible circular locking dependency detected [was: linux-next: Tree for Aug 22]

On (08/23/17 09:03), Byungchul Park wrote: [..] aha, ok > The report is talking about the following lockup: > > A work in a worker A task work on exit to user > -- --- > mutex_lock(>bd_mutex) >

possible circular locking dependency detected [was: linux-next: Tree for Aug 22]

Hello, == WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected 4.13.0-rc6-next-20170822-dbg-00020-g39758ed8aae0-dirty #1746 Not tainted -- fsck.ext4/148 is trying to acquire lock:

Re: [-next] BUG_ON in scsi_target_destroy()

ion case, which is what > everyone else is running into, we will try to remove a running target > when it has no more scsi devices left on it. So the correct patch > should be to make the BUG_ON see this: works for me. Reported-and-tested-by: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhat...@gmail

Re: [-next] BUG_ON in scsi_target_destroy()

Hi, On (04/13/16 10:41), Johannes Thumshirn wrote: > Hi Sergey, Xiong, > > Can you try below patch? it panics my system. first it warn_on-s in lib/kobject.c:244 then NULL dereferences do_scan_async __scsi_remove_device scsi_target_reap device_del dpm_sysfs_remove

[-next] BUG_ON in scsi_target_destroy()

Hello, commit 7b106f2de6938c31ce5e9c86bc70ad3904666b96 Author: Johannes Thumshirn Date: Tue Apr 5 11:50:44 2016 +0200 scsi: Add intermediate STARGET_REMOVE state to scsi_target_state BUG_ON()s (next-20160411) each time I remove a usb flash [ 49.561600] []

Re: [PATCH] st: convert DRIVER_ATTR macros to DRIVER_ATTR_RO

On (06/24/15 06:10), Seymour, Shane M wrote: [..] /* The sysfs driver interface. Read-only at the moment */ -static ssize_t st_try_direct_io_show(struct device_driver *ddp, char *buf) +static ssize_t try_direct_io_show(struct device_driver *ddp, char *buf) { - return snprintf(buf,

Re: [PATCH] st: convert DRIVER_ATTR macros to DRIVER_ATTR_RO

On (06/24/15 08:10), Greg KH gre...@linuxfoundation.org (gre...@linuxfoundation.org) wrote: On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 03:25:57PM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote: On (06/24/15 06:10), Seymour, Shane M wrote: [..] /* The sysfs driver interface. Read-only at the moment */ -static

[linux-next] scsi_attach_vpd() warning at mm/page_alloc.c:2497

Hello, [1.971778] [ cut here ] [1.971960] WARNING: CPU: 1 PID: 6 at mm/page_alloc.c:2497 __alloc_pages_nodemask+0x1b9/0x693() [1.972246] Modules linked in: sd_mod ahci [1.972604] CPU: 1 PID: 6 Comm: kworker/u8:0 Not tainted

Re: [linux-next] scsi_attach_vpd() warning at mm/page_alloc.c:2497

On (03/27/14 07:29), James Bottomley wrote: On Thu, 2014-03-27 at 13:19 +0300, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote: Hello, [1.971778] [ cut here ] [1.971960] WARNING: CPU: 1 PID: 6 at mm/page_alloc.c:2497 __alloc_pages_nodemask+0x1b9/0x693() [1.972246

Re: [linux-next] scsi_attach_vpd() warning at mm/page_alloc.c:2497

On (03/27/14 07:29), James Bottomley wrote: On Thu, 2014-03-27 at 13:19 +0300, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote: Hello, [1.971778] [ cut here ] [1.971960] WARNING: CPU: 1 PID: 6 at mm/page_alloc.c:2497 __alloc_pages_nodemask+0x1b9/0x693() [1.972246