On 12/19/14 18:14, Mike Snitzer wrote: > On Fri, Dec 19 2014 at 10:38am -0500, > Mike Snitzer <snitzer@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> On Fri, Dec 19 2014 at 9:32am -0500, >> Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@xxxxxxx> wrote: >> >>> On 12/18/14 00:06, Mike Snitzer wrote: >>>> So if you know someone with relevant blk-mq hardware who might benefit >>>> from blk-mq multipathing please point them at this code and have them >>>> report back! >>> >>> Hello Mike, >>> >>> Great to see that you are working on blk-mq multipathing. Unfortunately >>> a test with the SRP initiator and your dm-for-3.20-blk-mq tree merged >>> with Linus' latest tree was not successful. This is what was reported >>> when I tried to start multipathd (without call trace, followed by a >>> hard lockup): >>> >>> ========================================================= >>> [ INFO: possible irq lock inversion dependency detected ] >>> 3.18.0-debug+ #1 Tainted: G W >>> --------------------------------------------------------- >>> kdmwork-253:0/5347 just changed the state of lock: >>> (&(&m->lock)->rlock){+.....}, at: [<ffffffffa080eb80>] __multipath_map.isra.15+0x40/0x1f0 [dm_multipath] >>> but this lock was taken by another, HARDIRQ-safe lock in the past: >>> (&(&q->__queue_lock)->rlock){-.-...} >>> >>> and interrupts could create inverse lock ordering between them. >>> >>> other info that might help us debug this: >>> Possible interrupt unsafe locking scenario: >> >> This "dm: submit stacked requests in irq enabled context" commit >> https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/device-mapper/linux-dm.git/commit/?h=dm-for-3.20-blk-mq&id=1844ba7e2e013fa38c45d646248c517eb363e26c >> >> changed the locking needed in the multipath target. I altered >> __multipath_map but didn't audit elsewhere. I'll work through it. > > Hi Bart, > > This patch silences the lockdep inversion splat on my testbed, but I'd > really appreciate it if you could see if it works for you since you hit > an actual hang: > > [ ... ] Hello Mike, Good news: with this patch my standard SRP multipath test ran fine for several hours, after which I stopped the test. The only issue I hit during this test is the one mentioned on https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/10/29/523 but that's a bug in the e1000 driver that is not related to multipath. Bart. -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel