[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5397753B.2020009@fb.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2014 15:14:35 -0600
From: Jens Axboe <axboe@...com>
To: Keith Busch <keith.busch@...el.com>
CC: Matias Bjørling <m@...rling.me>,
"willy@...ux.intel.com" <willy@...ux.intel.com>,
"sbradshaw@...ron.com" <sbradshaw@...ron.com>,
"tom.leiming@...il.com" <tom.leiming@...il.com>,
"hch@...radead.org" <hch@...radead.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org" <linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7] NVMe: conversion to blk-mq
On 06/10/2014 03:10 PM, Keith Busch wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Jun 2014, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> On 06/10/2014 01:29 PM, Keith Busch wrote:
>>> I have two devices, one formatted 4k, the other 512. The 4k is used as
>>> the TEST_DEV and 512 is used as SCRATCH_DEV. I'm always hitting a BUG
>>> when
>>> unmounting the scratch dev in xfstests generic/068. The bug looks like
>>> nvme was trying to use an SGL that doesn't map correctly to a PRP.
>>
>> I'm guessing it's some of the coalescing settings, since the driver is
>> now using the generic block rq mapping.
>
> Ok, sounds right. I mentioned in a way earlier review it doesn't look
> like a request that doesn't conform to a PRP list would get split anymore,
> and this test seems to confirm that.
>
> Can we create something that will allow a driver to add DMA constraints to
> a request queue with the rules of a PRP list?
I haven't even looked at the rules - can you briefly outline them? From
a quick look, seems it does prp chaining for every 512 entries. But
nvme_setup_prps() looks like voodoo to an uninitiated, it could have
used a comment or two :-)
--
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