<div dir="ltr">Grabbing Mikes latest combined tree and testing it now<div> </div><div>Thanks</div><div>Laurence</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"> <div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 6:57 PM, Laurence Oberman <<a href="mailto:loberman@redhat.com" target="_blank">loberman@redhat.com</a>> wrote: <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5">On Wed, 2018-01-17 at 23:53 +0000, Bart Van Assche wrote: > On Wed, 2018-01-17 at 18:43 -0500, Laurence Oberman wrote: > > On Wed, 2018-01-17 at 23:31 +0000, Bart Van Assche wrote: > > > On Wed, 2018-01-17 at 11:58 -0500, Mike Snitzer wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jan 17 2018 at 11:50am -0500, > > > > Jens Axboe <<a href="mailto:axboe@kernel.dk">axboe@kernel.dk</a>> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On 1/17/18 9:25 AM, Mike Snitzer wrote: > > > > > > Hi Jens, > > > > > > > > > > > > Think this finally takes care of it! ;) > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > Mike > > > > > > > > > > > > Mike Snitzer (2): > > > > > > blk-mq: factor out a few helpers from > > > > > > __blk_mq_try_issue_directly > > > > > > blk-mq-sched: remove unused 'can_block' arg from > > > > > > blk_mq_sched_insert_request > > > > > > > > > > > > Ming Lei (1): > > > > > > blk-mq: improve DM's blk-mq IO merging via > > > > > > blk_insert_cloned_request feedback > > > > > > > > > > Applied - added actual commit message to patch 3. > > > > > > > > Great, thanks. > > > > > > Hello Mike, > > > > > > Laurence hit the following while retesting the SRP initiator > > > code: > > > > > > [ 2223.797129] list_add corruption. prev->next should be next > > > (00000000e0ddd5dd), but was 000000003defe5cd. > > > (prev=000000003defe5cd). > > > [ 2223.862168] WARNING: CPU: 14 PID: 577 at lib/list_debug.c:28 > > > __list_add_valid+0x6a/0x70 > > > [ 2224.481151] CPU: 14 PID: 577 Comm: kworker/14:1H Tainted: > > > G I 4.15.0-rc8.bart3+ #1 > > > [ 2224.531193] Hardware name: HP ProLiant DL380 G7, BIOS P67 > > > 08/16/2015 > > > [ 2224.567150] Workqueue: kblockd blk_mq_run_work_fn > > > [ 2224.593182] RIP: 0010:__list_add_valid+0x6a/0x70 > > > [ 2224.967002] Call Trace: > > > [ 2224.980941] blk_mq_request_bypass_insert+0x57/0xa0 > > > [ 2225.009044] __blk_mq_try_issue_directly+0x56/0x1e0 > > > [ 2225.037007] blk_mq_request_direct_issue+0x5d/0xc0 > > > [ 2225.090608] map_request+0x142/0x260 [dm_mod] > > > [ 2225.114756] dm_mq_queue_rq+0xa4/0x120 [dm_mod] > > > [ 2225.140812] blk_mq_dispatch_rq_list+0x90/0x5b0 > > > [ 2225.211769] blk_mq_sched_dispatch_requests+0x107/0x1a0 > > > [ 2225.240825] __blk_mq_run_hw_queue+0x5f/0xf0 > > > [ 2225.264852] process_one_work+0x141/0x340 > > > [ 2225.287872] worker_thread+0x47/0x3e0 > > > [ 2225.308354] kthread+0xf5/0x130 > > > [ 2225.396405] ret_from_fork+0x32/0x40 > > > > > > That call trace did not show up before this patch series was > > > added to > > > Jens' > > > tree. This is a regression. Could this have been introduced by > > > this > > > patch > > > series? > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > Bart. > > > > Hi Bart > > One thing to note. > > > > I tested Mike's combined tree on the weekend fully dm4.16-block4.16 > > and > > did not see this. > > This was with Mike combined tree and SRPT running 4.13-rc2. > > > > I also tested your tree Monday with the revert of the > > scatter/gather > > patches with both SRP and SRPT running your tree and it was fine. > > > > So its a combination of what you provided me before and that has > > been > > added to your tree. > > > > Mike combined tree seemed to be fine, I can revisit that if needed. > > I > > still have that kernel in place. > > > > I was not running latest SRPT when I tested Mike's tree > > Hello Laurence, > > The tree I sent you this morning did not only include Mike's latest > dm code > but also Jens' latest for-next branch. So what you wrote above does > not > contradict what I wrote in my e-mail, namely that I suspect that a > regression > was introduced by the patches in the series "blk-mq: improve DM's > blk-mq IO > merging via blk_insert_cloned_request feedback". These changes namely > went in > through the block tree and not through the dm tree. Additionally, > these > changes were not present in the block-scsi-for-next branch I sent you > on > Monday. > > Bart. </div></div>Hi Bart Thank you I probably don't have latest stuff Mike added Monday in his tree. I have not gone back to test that, been busy with yours all week. I will get with Mike and pull his latest and test it with SRPT on 4.13- rc2 like before. That should be the best way to isolate this. Regards Laurence </blockquote></div> </div>