[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1236212029.32072.4.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2009 18:13:49 -0600
From: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...ozas.de>,
Boaz Harrosh <bharrosh@...asas.com>,
linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-ide <linux-ide@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [BUG] 2.6.29-rc6-2450cf in scsi_lib.c (was: Large amount of
scsi-sgpool)objects
On Wed, 2009-03-04 at 22:56 +0000, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-03-04 at 22:45 +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Wed, 4 Mar 2009, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> >
> > Instrumented the code and the result of the failing request is
> > below. Looks like the function which sets up the request gets
> > nr_phys_segments wrong by one.
> >
> > If you need further trace data feel free to ask.
>
> OK, the mapping all checks out correctly ... there must be something
> wrong with the way we count before mapping.
>
> If you're tracing everything, could you add these static prints to the
> trace ... they'll trigger a lot, but capturing how they applied to the
> failing request might tell us why the count is wrong.
Debugging this on IRC, this is the point we reached:
ftrace debugging patch:
http://tglx.de/~tglx/dbg.patch
We're tracing both blk_recalc_rq_segments() and
blk_phys_contig_segment()
The results are here:
http://tglx.de/~tglx/t.txt.bz2
Although what they show is that we're missing the point where the
counting goes wrong (blk_recalc_rq_segments only goes up to 5 max).
James
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists