On Thu, Sep 02 2010 at 6:24am -0400, Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hello, > > On 09/02/2010 05:22 AM, Mike Snitzer wrote: > >> But we can meet in the middle. I've reordered the DM FLUSH+FUA patches > >> so that the more intrusive bio-based relaxed ordering patch is at the > >> very end. > >> > >> My hope was that the request-based deadlock I'm seeing would disappear > >> if that relaxed ordering patch wasn't applied. Unfortunately, I still > >> see the hang. > > I don't think it would make any difference. AFAICS, the patch doesn't > touch anything requested based dm uses. Right, I was stacking bio-based on request-based so it initially seemed like they were related (based on traces I had seen). > > Turns out I can reproduce the hang on a stock 2.6.36-rc3 (without _any_ > > FLUSH+FUA patches)! > > Hmmm... that's interesting. Definitely, and I just tested a recent RHEL6 kernel.. it works perfectly fine. So now I'll be doing a git bisect to try to pinpoint where upstream went wrong. > > I'll try to pin-point the root cause but I think my test is somehow > > exposing a bug in my virt setup. > > > > So this hang is definitely starting to look like a red herring. > > > > Tejun, > > > > This news should clear the way for you to re-post your patches. I think > > it would be best if you reordered the DM patches like I did here in this > > series: http://people.redhat.com/msnitzer/patches/flush-fua/series > > > > In particular, the dm-relax-ordering-of-bio-based-flush-implementation > > patch should go at the end. I think it makes for a more logical > > evolution of the DM code. > > Sure, I'll. I still think having the queue kicking mechanism is a > good idea tho. I'll integrate that into series, reorder and repost > it. Sounds good. Thanks, Mike -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
