[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <055f040d-3f9a-a8fd-e8e2-326c6b9094a1@kernel.dk>
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2017 11:09:33 -0700
From: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
To: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>,
Bart Van Assche <Bart.VanAssche@....com>,
"virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org"
<virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
"linux-block@...r.kernel.org" <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>,
"mst@...hat.com" <mst@...hat.com>,
"jasowang@...hat.com" <jasowang@...hat.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Subject: Re: 4.14: WARNING: CPU: 4 PID: 2895 at block/blk-mq.c:1144 with
virtio-blk (also 4.12 stable)
On 11/21/2017 10:27 AM, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 11/21/2017 03:14 AM, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
>> Bisect points to
>>
>> 1b5a7455d345b223d3a4658a9e5fce985b7998c1 is the first bad commit
>> commit 1b5a7455d345b223d3a4658a9e5fce985b7998c1
>> Author: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
>> Date: Mon Jun 26 12:20:57 2017 +0200
>>
>> blk-mq: Create hctx for each present CPU
>>
>> commit 4b855ad37194f7bdbb200ce7a1c7051fecb56a08 upstream.
>>
>> Currently we only create hctx for online CPUs, which can lead to a lot
>> of churn due to frequent soft offline / online operations. Instead
>> allocate one for each present CPU to avoid this and dramatically simplify
>> the code.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
>> Reviewed-by: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
>> Cc: Keith Busch <keith.busch@...el.com>
>> Cc: linux-block@...r.kernel.org
>> Cc: linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org
>> Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20170626102058.10200-3-hch@lst.de
>> Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
>> Cc: Oleksandr Natalenko <oleksandr@...alenko.name>
>> Cc: Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
>> Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
>
> I wonder if we're simply not getting the masks updated correctly. I'll
> take a look.
Can't make it trigger here. We do init for each present CPU, which means
that if I offline a few CPUs here and register a queue, those still show
up as present (just offline) and get mapped accordingly.
>From the looks of it, your setup is different. If the CPU doesn't show
up as present and it gets hotplugged, then I can see how this condition
would trigger. What environment are you running this in? We might have
to re-introduce the cpu hotplug notifier, right now we just monitor
for a dead cpu and handle that.
--
Jens Axboe
Powered by blists - more mailing lists