> Il giorno 7 mag 2021, alle ore 10:30, Yi Zhang <yi.zhang@xxxxxxxxxx> ha scritto: > > On Mon, May 3, 2021 at 5:35 PM Paolo Valente <paolo.valente@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> >> >>> Il giorno 20 apr 2021, alle ore 09:33, Paolo Valente <paolo.valente@xxxxxxxxxx> ha scritto: >>> >>> >>> >>>> Il giorno 20 apr 2021, alle ore 04:00, Yi Zhang <yi.zhang@xxxxxxxxxx> ha scritto: >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, Apr 7, 2021 at 11:15 PM Yi Zhang <yi.zhang@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> On 4/2/21 9:39 PM, Paolo Valente wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Il giorno 1 apr 2021, alle ore 03:27, Yi Zhang <yi.zhang@xxxxxxxxxx> ha scritto: >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi >>>>> Hi >>>>> >>>>>> We reproduced this bfq regression[3] on ppc64le with blktests[2] on the latest linux-block/for-next branch, seems it was introduced with [1] from my bisecting, pls help check it. Let me know if you need any testing for it, thanks. >>>>>> >>>>> Thanks for reporting this bug and finding the candidate offending commit. Could you try this test with my dev kernel, which might provide more information? The kernel is here: >>>>> https://github.com/Algodev-github/bfq-mq >>>>> >>>>> Alternatively, I could try to provide you with patches to instrument your kernel. >>>> HI Paolo >>>> I tried your dev kernel, but with no luck to reproduce it, could you >>>> provide the debug patch based on latest linux-block/for-next? >>>> >>>> Hi Paolo >>>> This issue has been consistently reproduced with LTP/fstests/blktests on recent linux-block/for-next, do you have a chance to check it? >>> >>> Hi Yi, all, >>> I've been working hard to port my code-instrumentation layer to the kernel in for-next. I seem I finished the porting yesterday. I tested it but the system crashed. I'm going to analyze the oops. Maybe this freeze is caused by mistakes in this layer, maybe the instrumentation is already detecting a bug. In the first case, I'll fix the mistakes and try the tests suggested in this thread. >>> >> >> Hi Yi, all, >> I seem to have made it. I've attached a patch series, which applies >> on top of for-next, as it was when you reported this failure (i.e., on >> top of 816e1d1c2f7d Merge branch 'for-5.13/io_uring' into for-next). >> If patches are to be applied on top of a different HEAD, and they >> don't apply cleanly, I'll take care of rebasing them. >> >> Of course I've tried your test myself, but with no failure at all. >> >> Looking forward to your feedback, >> Paolo >> > Hi Paolo > > With the patch series, blktests nvme-tcp nvme/011 passed on > linux-block/for-next, thanks. > Great! That series contained only one fix. I do hope that it has been that fix to eliminate the failure. So I'm about to propose such a fix as an individual patch for mainline. Please test it if you can. Thanks, Paolo > Thanks > Yi
