On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 12:16 AM, Tao Ma <tm@xxxxxx> wrote:
> On 12/21/2011 03:30 PM, Williams, Dan J wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 10:48 PM, Tao Ma <tm@xxxxxx> wrote:
>>> On 12/21/2011 02:36 PM, Meelis Roos wrote:
>>>>>> - if (unlikely(tag >= bqt->max_depth)) {
>>>>>> + if (WARN_ONCE(tag >= bqt->real_max_depth,
>>>>>> + "%s: tag %d greater than tag map size: %d\n",
>>>>>> + __func__, tag, bqt->real_max_depth)) {
>>>>>> /*
>>>>>> * This can happen after tag depth has been reduced.
>>>>> Please also change the comments here since it should never happen in the
>>>>> right workload.
>>>>
>>>> What do you mean by right workload? Normal workload?
>>> yeah, so real_max_depth is the maximum depth we ever have. So in normal
>>> case(shrinking queue depth is also a normal user case), we should never
>>> arrive here. In another word, if tag >= real_max_depth, we should have a
>>> bug in the kernel.
>>
>> So this is what Ed Nadolski suggested, just cut to the chase and do,
>> the following. Seems like the comment is what got us into trouble in
>> the first place.
>>
>> diff --git a/block/blk-tag.c b/block/blk-tag.c
>> index e74d6d1..e297d9d7 100644
>> --- a/block/blk-tag.c
>> +++ b/block/blk-tag.c
>> @@ -284,16 +284,7 @@ void blk_queue_end_tag(struct request_queue *q,
>> struct request *rq)
>> struct blk_queue_tag *bqt = q->queue_tags;
>> int tag = rq->tag;
>>
>> - BUG_ON(tag == -1);
>> -
>> - if (unlikely(tag >= bqt->max_depth)) {
>> - /*
>> - * This can happen after tag depth has been reduced.
>> - * But tag shouldn't be larger than real_max_depth.
>> - */
>> - WARN_ON(tag >= bqt->real_max_depth);
>> - return;
>> - }
>> + BUG_ON(tag == -1 || tag > bqt->real_max_depth);
> I guess tag = bqt->real_max_depth should also be a problem.
Yes, sorry, should have been >=
--
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
