On Mon, Jan 12 2015 at 11:34am -0500, Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 01/12/2015 09:12 AM, Bart Van Assche wrote: > >On 01/12/15 16:42, Jens Axboe wrote: > >>On 01/12/2015 07:46 AM, Bart Van Assche wrote: > >>>bt_get: __bt_get() returned -1 > >>>queue_num=2, nr_tags=62, reserved_tags=0, bits_per_word=3 > >>>nr_free=62, nr_reserved=0, may_queue=0 > >>>active_queues=8 > >> > >>Can you add dumping of hctx->nr_active when this fails? You case is that > >>the may_queue logic says no-can-do, so it smells like the nr_active > >>accounting is wonky since you have supposedly no allocated tags, yet it > >>clearly thinks that you do. > > > >Hello Jens, > > > >The requested output is as follows: > > > >bt_get: __bt_get() returned -1 > >queue_num=0, nr_tags=62, reserved_tags=0, bits_per_word=3 > >nr_free=62, nr_reserved=0, hctx->tags->active_queues=7, > >hctx->nr_active=9, hctx_may_queue()=0 > >active_queues=7 > > So that does look a bit off, we have (supposedly) 9 active requests, > but nothing allocated. When the mkfs is done and things are idle, > can you try and cat the 'active' file in the mq directory? I want to > see if it drops to zero or stays elevated. Could this be something flawed in the iSCSI blk-mq implementation? I haven't ever been able to replicate this problem with virtio-blk. -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
