Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > On 2014-07-10 17:11, Jeff Moyer wrote: >> Benjamin LaHaise <bcrl@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> >>>> >>>> [ 186.339064] ioctx_alloc: nr_events=-2 aio_max_nr=65536 >>>> [ 186.339065] ioctx_alloc: nr_events=-2 aio_max_nr=65536 >>>> [ 186.339067] ioctx_alloc: nr_events=-2 aio_max_nr=65536 >>>> [ 186.339068] ioctx_alloc: nr_events=-2 aio_max_nr=65536 >>>> [ 186.339069] ioctx_alloc: nr_events=-2 aio_max_nr=65536 >>> >>> Something is horribly wrong here. There is no way that value for nr_events >>> should be passed in to ioctx_alloc(). This implies that userland is calling >>> io_setup() with an impossibly large value for nr_events. Can you post the >>> actual diff for your fs/aio.c relative to linus' tree? >>> >> >> fio does exactly this! it passes INT_MAX. > > That's correct, I had actually forgotten about this. It was a change > made a few years back, in correlation with the aio optimizations > posted then, basically telling aio to ignore that silly (and broken) > user ring. I still don't see how you accomplish that. Making it bigger doesn't get rid of it. ;-) Cheers, Jeff -- 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
