Re: Panic when rebooting target server testing srp on 5.0.0-rc2

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Wed, 2019-04-03 at 14:47 -0700, Sagi Grimberg wrote:
+AD4 +AD4 I have not been able to reproduce this issue. But you may want to try
+AD4 +AD4 the following patch (applies on top of v5.1-rc3):
+AD4 +AD4 
+AD4 +AD4 
+AD4 +AD4 Subject: +AFs-PATCH+AF0 block: Fix blk+AF8-mq+AF8-try+AF8-issue+AF8-directly()
+AD4 +AD4 
+AD4 +AD4 If blk+AF8-mq+AF8-try+AF8-issue+AF8-directly() returns BLK+AF8-STS+ACoAXw-RESOURCE that means that
+AD4 +AD4 the request has not been queued and that the caller should retry to submit
+AD4 +AD4 the request. Both blk+AF8-mq+AF8-request+AF8-bypass+AF8-insert() and
+AD4 +AD4 blk+AF8-mq+AF8-sched+AF8-insert+AF8-request() guarantee that a request will be processed.
+AD4 +AD4 Hence return BLK+AF8-STS+AF8-OK if one of these functions is called. This patch
+AD4 +AD4 avoids that blk+AF8-mq+AF8-dispatch+AF8-rq+AF8-list() crashes when using dm-mpath.
+AD4 +AD4 
+AD4 +AD4 Reported-by: Laurence Oberman +ADw-loberman+AEA-redhat.com+AD4
+AD4 +AD4 Fixes: 7f556a44e61d (+ACI-blk-mq: refactor the code of issue request directly+ACI) +ACM v5.0.
+AD4 +AD4 Signed-off-by: Bart Van Assche +ADw-bvanassche+AEA-acm.org+AD4
+AD4 +AD4 ---
+AD4 +AD4   block/blk-mq.c +AHw 9 +-+--------
+AD4 +AD4   1 file changed, 2 insertions(+-), 7 deletions(-)
+AD4 +AD4 
+AD4 +AD4 diff --git a/block/blk-mq.c b/block/blk-mq.c
+AD4 +AD4 index 652d0c6d5945..b2c20dce8a30 100644
+AD4 +AD4 --- a/block/blk-mq.c
+AD4 +AD4 +-+-+- b/block/blk-mq.c
+AD4 +AD4 +AEAAQA -1859,16 +-1859,11 +AEAAQA blk+AF8-status+AF8-t blk+AF8-mq+AF8-try+AF8-issue+AF8-directly(struct blk+AF8-mq+AF8-hw+AF8-ctx +ACo-hctx,
+AD4 +AD4   	case BLK+AF8-STS+AF8-RESOURCE:
+AD4 +AD4   		if (force) +AHs
+AD4 +AD4   			blk+AF8-mq+AF8-request+AF8-bypass+AF8-insert(rq, run+AF8-queue)+ADs
+AD4 +AD4 -			/+ACo
+AD4 +AD4 -			 +ACo We have to return BLK+AF8-STS+AF8-OK for the DM
+AD4 +AD4 -			 +ACo to avoid livelock. Otherwise, we return
+AD4 +AD4 -			 +ACo the real result to indicate whether the
+AD4 +AD4 -			 +ACo request is direct-issued successfully.
+AD4 +AD4 -			 +ACo-/
+AD4 +AD4 -			ret +AD0 bypass ? BLK+AF8-STS+AF8-OK : ret+ADs
+AD4 +AD4 +-			ret +AD0 BLK+AF8-STS+AF8-OK+ADs
+AD4 +AD4   		+AH0 else if (+ACE-bypass) +AHs
+AD4 +AD4   			blk+AF8-mq+AF8-sched+AF8-insert+AF8-request(rq, false,
+AD4 +AD4   						    run+AF8-queue, false)+ADs
+AD4 +AD4 +-			ret +AD0 BLK+AF8-STS+AF8-OK+ADs
+AD4 +AD4   		+AH0
+AD4 
+AD4 I would move the ret assignment here after the condition statement.

How is that expected to work for the +ACE-force +ACYAJg bypass case? I don't
want to alter +ACI-ret+ACI in that case.

Thanks,

Bart.



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [SCSI Target Devel]     [Linux SCSI Target Infrastructure]     [Kernel Newbies]     [IDE]     [Security]     [Git]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux ATA RAID]     [Linux IIO]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]

  Powered by Linux