On 12/17/18 5:16 PM, Jens Axboe wrote: > On 12/17/18 4:49 PM, Jens Axboe wrote: >> On 12/17/18 4:27 PM, Jens Axboe wrote: >>> On 12/17/18 4:16 PM, Bart Van Assche wrote: >>>> On Mon, 2018-12-17 at 11:28 -0700, Jens Axboe wrote: >>>>> As I'm sure you're all aware, the merge window is coming up. This time >>>>> it happens to coincide with that is a holiday for most. My plan is to >>>>> send in an EARLY pull request to Linus, Thursday at the latest. If you're >>>>> sitting on anything that should go in with the initial merge, then I need >>>>> to have it ASAP. >>>>> >>>>> I'll do a later pull about a week in with things that were missed, but >>>>> I'm really hoping to make that fixes only. Any driver updates etc should >>>>> go in now. >>>> >>>> Hi Jens, >>>> >>>> If I run blktests/srp/002 against Linus' master branch then that test passes, >>>> no matter how many times I run that test. If I run that test against your >>>> for-next branch however (commit 6a252f2772c0) then that test hangs. The output >>>> of my list-pending-block-requests script is as follows when the hang occurs: >>> >>> Ugh, I'll try and run that here again, that test is unfortunately such a pain >>> to run and requires me to manually install multipath libs (and remember to >>> uninstall before rebooting, or udev fails?). >>> >>> I'll take a look! >> >> Looks like what Ming was talking about. CC'ing Ming and Mike. Lots of >> kworkers are stuck like this: >> >> [ 252.310187] kworker/2:19 D14072 8147 2 0x80000000 >> [ 252.316803] Workqueue: dio/dm-2 dio_aio_complete_work >> [ 252.322925] Call Trace: >> [ 252.326137] ? __schedule+0x231/0x5f0 >> [ 252.330703] schedule+0x2a/0x80 >> [ 252.334689] rwsem_down_write_failed+0x204/0x320 >> [ 252.340330] ? generic_make_request_checks+0x55/0x370 >> [ 252.346542] ? call_rwsem_down_write_failed+0x13/0x20 >> [ 252.352669] call_rwsem_down_write_failed+0x13/0x20 >> [ 252.358601] down_write+0x1b/0x30 >> [ 252.362781] __generic_file_fsync+0x3e/0xb0 >> [ 252.367933] ext4_sync_file+0xcc/0x2e0 >> [ 252.372599] dio_complete+0x1c4/0x210 >> [ 252.377168] process_one_work+0x1cb/0x350 >> [ 252.382915] worker_thread+0x28/0x3c0 >> [ 252.387482] ? process_one_work+0x350/0x350 >> [ 252.392632] kthread+0x107/0x120 >> [ 252.396717] ? kthread_park+0x80/0x80 >> [ 252.401285] ret_from_fork+0x1f/0x30 >> >> Where did this regression come from? This was passing just fine >> recently. > > Looks like this is the offending commit: > > commit c4576aed8d85d808cd6443bda58393d525207d01 > Author: Mike Snitzer <snitzer@xxxxxxxxxx> > Date: Tue Dec 11 09:10:26 2018 -0500 > > dm: fix request-based dm's use of dm_wait_for_completion Yep confirmed, reverted that on top and it passes. dm-2 has plenty of requests that are allocated and pending dispatch, so the md_in_flight() will return true. Mike, should it be checking for allocated requests or in-flight? -- Jens Axboe
