On 08/29/2016 12:06 PM, Gabriel Krisman Bertazi wrote:
Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
Can you try this patch? It's not perfect, but I'll be interested if it
makes a difference for you.
Hi Jens,
Sorry for the delay. I just got back to this and have been running your
patch on top of 4.8 without a crash for over 1 hour. I wanna give it
more time to make sure it's running properly, though.
Let me get back to you after a few more rounds of test.
Thanks, sounds good. The patches have landed in mainline too.
This one should handle the WARN_ON() for running the hw queue on the
wrong CPU as well.
On the workaround you added to prevent WARN_ON, we surely need to
prevent blk_mq_hctx_next_cpu from scheduling dead cpus in the first
place, right.. How do you feel about the following RFC? I know it's
not a complete fix, but it feels like a good improvement to me.
http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-scsi/msg98608.html
But we can't completely prevent it, and I don't think we have to. I just
don't want to trigger a warning for something that's a valid condition.
I want the warning to trigger if this happens without the CPU going
offline, since then it's indicative of a real bug in the mapping. Your
patch isn't going to prevent it either - it'll shrink the window, at the
expense of making blk_mq_hctx_next_cpu() more expensive. So I don't
think it's worthwhile.
--
Jens Axboe
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-block" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
