Boaz Harrosh wrote: > Boaz Harrosh wrote: >> If a block ULD had allocated a request and mapped some memory into it, >> using one of blk_rq_map_xxx routines, but then for some reason failed to >> execute the request through one of the blk_execute_request routines. >> Then the associated BIO would leak, unless ULD resorts to low-level loops >> intimate of block internals. >> >> [RFC] >> This code will also catch situations where LLD failed to complete >> the request before aborting it. Such situations are a BUG. Should we >> use WARN_ON_ONCE() in that case. The situation above is possible and >> can happen normally in memory pressure situations so maybe we should >> devise a bit-flag that ULD denotes that the request was aborted and >> only WARN_ON if flag was not set. >> >> I'm sending this before any-tests so people can comment on possible >> pitfalls. >> >> Signed-off-by: Boaz Harrosh <bharrosh@xxxxxxxxxxx> >> --- > > I've booted a Linux PC with lots of sata disks, connected an iscsi > target, ran OSD tests. It looks like it's working which means > request->bio is set to NULL after it is used in the regular path. > > This needs to sit in Linux next and be tested for a long while. > > Jens I'll be waiting for your comment and will send a proper > patch for the block bits. We will have to time this with James > to see when the OSD bits can be submitted after that, then TOMO's > patch for un-exporting blk_req_append_bio can be merged. Or maybe > it can all go in one patch through scsi? > > Thanks > Boaz Spock to soon this patch is shit, I'll look into it Sorry for the noise Boaz -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
