On Wed, 2018-01-17 at 18:43 -0500, Laurence Oberman wrote: > On Wed, 2018-01-17 at 23:31 +0000, Bart Van Assche wrote: > > On Wed, 2018-01-17 at 11:58 -0500, Mike Snitzer wrote: > > > On Wed, Jan 17 2018 at 11:50am -0500, > > > Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > On 1/17/18 9:25 AM, Mike Snitzer wrote: > > > > > Hi Jens, > > > > > > > > > > Think this finally takes care of it! ;) > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > Mike > > > > > > > > > > Mike Snitzer (2): > > > > > blk-mq: factor out a few helpers from > > > > > __blk_mq_try_issue_directly > > > > > blk-mq-sched: remove unused 'can_block' arg from > > > > > blk_mq_sched_insert_request > > > > > > > > > > Ming Lei (1): > > > > > blk-mq: improve DM's blk-mq IO merging via > > > > > blk_insert_cloned_request feedback > > > > > > > > Applied - added actual commit message to patch 3. > > > > > > Great, thanks. > > > > Hello Mike, > > > > Laurence hit the following while retesting the SRP initiator code: > > > > [ 2223.797129] list_add corruption. prev->next should be next > > (00000000e0ddd5dd), but was 000000003defe5cd. > > (prev=000000003defe5cd). > > [ 2223.862168] WARNING: CPU: 14 PID: 577 at lib/list_debug.c:28 > > __list_add_valid+0x6a/0x70 > > [ 2224.481151] CPU: 14 PID: 577 Comm: kworker/14:1H Tainted: > > G I 4.15.0-rc8.bart3+ #1 > > [ 2224.531193] Hardware name: HP ProLiant DL380 G7, BIOS P67 > > 08/16/2015 > > [ 2224.567150] Workqueue: kblockd blk_mq_run_work_fn > > [ 2224.593182] RIP: 0010:__list_add_valid+0x6a/0x70 > > [ 2224.967002] Call Trace: > > [ 2224.980941] blk_mq_request_bypass_insert+0x57/0xa0 > > [ 2225.009044] __blk_mq_try_issue_directly+0x56/0x1e0 > > [ 2225.037007] blk_mq_request_direct_issue+0x5d/0xc0 > > [ 2225.090608] map_request+0x142/0x260 [dm_mod] > > [ 2225.114756] dm_mq_queue_rq+0xa4/0x120 [dm_mod] > > [ 2225.140812] blk_mq_dispatch_rq_list+0x90/0x5b0 > > [ 2225.211769] blk_mq_sched_dispatch_requests+0x107/0x1a0 > > [ 2225.240825] __blk_mq_run_hw_queue+0x5f/0xf0 > > [ 2225.264852] process_one_work+0x141/0x340 > > [ 2225.287872] worker_thread+0x47/0x3e0 > > [ 2225.308354] kthread+0xf5/0x130 > > [ 2225.396405] ret_from_fork+0x32/0x40 > > > > That call trace did not show up before this patch series was added to > > Jens' > > tree. This is a regression. Could this have been introduced by this > > patch > > series? > > > > Thanks, > > > > Bart. > > Hi Bart > One thing to note. > > I tested Mike's combined tree on the weekend fully dm4.16-block4.16 and > did not see this. > This was with Mike combined tree and SRPT running 4.13-rc2. > > I also tested your tree Monday with the revert of the scatter/gather > patches with both SRP and SRPT running your tree and it was fine. > > So its a combination of what you provided me before and that has been > added to your tree. > > Mike combined tree seemed to be fine, I can revisit that if needed. I > still have that kernel in place. > > I was not running latest SRPT when I tested Mike's tree Hello Laurence, The tree I sent you this morning did not only include Mike's latest dm code but also Jens' latest for-next branch. So what you wrote above does not contradict what I wrote in my e-mail, namely that I suspect that a regression was introduced by the patches in the series "blk-mq: improve DM's blk-mq IO merging via blk_insert_cloned_request feedback". These changes namely went in through the block tree and not through the dm tree. Additionally, these changes were not present in the block-scsi-for-next branch I sent you on Monday. Bart.
