On 8/22/18 1:37 PM, Holger Hoffstätte wrote: > On 08/22/18 21:17, Jens Axboe wrote: >>> So the obvious suspect is the new return of UINT_MAX from get_limit() to >>> __wbt_wait(). I first suspected that I mispatched something, but it's all >>> like in mainline or your tree. Even the recently moved-around atomic loop >>> inside rq_wait_inc_below() is 1:1 the same and looks like it should. >>> Now building mainline and see where that leads me. > > So mainline + your tree's last 4 patches works fine, as suspected. > It's all me, as usual. That's a relief! >> I wonder if it's a signedness thing? Can you try and see if using INT_MAX >> instead changes anything? > > Beat me to it while I was rebooting ;-) > Exactly what I also found a minute ago: > > $diff -rup linux-4.18.4/block/blk-rq-qos.c linux/block/blk-rq-qos.c > .. > -bool rq_wait_inc_below(struct rq_wait *rq_wait, int limit) > +bool rq_wait_inc_below(struct rq_wait *rq_wait, unsigned int limit) > .. > > Moo! Patching now. At least we have an explanation for why it didn't work. -- Jens Axboe
