Hi Jens,
>>> Can either one of you try with this patch? Won't fix anything, but it'll
>>> hopefully shine a bit of light on the issue.
>>>
>> Hi Jens
>>
>> Here is the full log:
>
>Thanks! I think I see what it could be - can you try this one as well,
>would like to confirm that the condition I think is triggering is what
>is triggering.
>
>diff --git a/block/blk-mq.c b/block/blk-mq.c
>index 07eb1412760b..81dede885231 100644
>--- a/block/blk-mq.c
>+++ b/block/blk-mq.c
>@@ -2515,6 +2515,8 @@ void blk_mq_submit_bio(struct bio *bio)
> if (plug && plug->cached_rq) {
> rq = rq_list_pop(&plug->cached_rq);
> INIT_LIST_HEAD(&rq->queuelist);
>+ WARN_ON_ONCE(q->elevator && !(rq->rq_flags & RQF_ELV));
>+ WARN_ON_ONCE(!q->elevator && (rq->rq_flags & RQF_ELV));
> } else {
> struct blk_mq_alloc_data data = {
> .q = q,
>@@ -2535,6 +2537,8 @@ void blk_mq_submit_bio(struct bio *bio)
> bio_wouldblock_error(bio);
> goto queue_exit;
> }
>+ WARN_ON_ONCE(q->elevator && !(rq->rq_flags & RQF_ELV));
>+ WARN_ON_ONCE(!q->elevator && (rq->rq_flags & RQF_ELV));
> }
>
> trace_block_getrq(bio);
>
>--
>Jens Axboe
The first reported warning was started from calling scsi_execute(), so how
about add the checking code in __scsi_execute()?
Thanks,
Daejun
