On Mon, 2017-01-30 at 17:38 -0800, Jens Axboe wrote: > That's a known bug in mainline. Pull it into 4.10-rc6, > or use my for-next where everything is already merged. Hello Jens, With your for-next branch (commit c2e60b3a2602) I haven't hit any block layer crashes so far. The only issue I encountered that is new is a memory leak triggered by the SG-IO code. These memory leak reports started to appear after I started testing the mq-deadline scheduler. kmemleak reported the following call stack multiple times after my tests had finished: unreferenced object 0xffff88041119e528 (size 192): comm "multipathd", pid 2353, jiffies 4295128020 (age 1332.440s) hex dump (first 32 bytes): 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ................ 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 12 01 00 00 00 00 00 00 ................ backtrace: [<ffffffff8165e3b5>] kmemleak_alloc+0x45/0xa0 [<ffffffff811cc23d>] __kmalloc+0x15d/0x2f0 [<ffffffff81310e35>] bio_alloc_bioset+0x185/0x1f0 [<ffffffff813117f4>] bio_map_user_iov+0x124/0x400 [<ffffffff81320b7a>] blk_rq_map_user_iov+0x11a/0x210 [<ffffffff81320cbd>] blk_rq_map_user+0x4d/0x60 [<ffffffff81336694>] sg_io+0x3d4/0x410 [<ffffffff813369d0>] scsi_cmd_ioctl+0x300/0x490 [<ffffffff81336b9d>] scsi_cmd_blk_ioctl+0x3d/0x50 [<ffffffff814b4360>] sd_ioctl+0x80/0x100 [<ffffffff8132ddde>] blkdev_ioctl+0x51e/0x9f0 [<ffffffff8122f388>] block_ioctl+0x38/0x40 [<ffffffff8120097f>] do_vfs_ioctl+0x8f/0x700 [<ffffffff8120102c>] SyS_ioctl+0x3c/0x70 [<ffffffff8166c4aa>] entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath+0x18/0xad Bart.
