On 1/24/23 9:03 AM, Michael Kelley (LINUX) wrote: > From: Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxxxxx> Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2023 1:11 PM >> >> On 1/20/23 9:56?PM, Michael Kelley (LINUX) wrote: >>> From: Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxxxxx> Sent: Monday, January 16, 2023 1:06 PM > > [snip] > >>> >>> I've wrapped up my testing on this patch. All testing was via >>> io_uring -- I did not test other paths. Testing was against a >>> combination of this patch and the previous patch set for a similar >>> problem. [1] >>> >>> I tested with a simple test program to issue single I/Os, and verified >>> the expected paths were taken through the block layer and io_uring >>> code for various size I/Os, including over 1 Mbyte. No EAGAIN errors >>> were seen. This testing was with a 6.1 kernel. >>> >>> Also tested the original app that surfaced the problem. It's a larger >>> scale workload using io_uring, and is where the problem was originally >>> encountered. That workload runs on a purpose-built 5.15 kernel, so I >>> backported both patches to 5.15 for this testing. All looks good. No >>> EAGAIN errors were seen. >> >> Thanks a lot for your thorough testing! Can you share the 5.15 >> backports, so we can put them into 5.15-stable as well potentially? >> > > Certainly. What's the best way to do that? Should I send them to you, > or to the linux-block list? Or post directly to stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx? > If the latter, maybe I need to wait until it has an upstream commit ID > that can be referenced. Also, you or someone should do a quick review > of the backport to make sure I didn't break something in a path I > didn't test. Just send them to the block list, then we have them for when the commit hits upstream and gives us a chance to review them upfront. Thanks! -- Jens Axboe
