[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1e51eb57-6d9b-a53c-9cd6-2adfc86b21b5@kernel.dk>
Date: Wed, 9 May 2018 11:01:52 -0600
From: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
To: Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
Paolo Valente <paolo.valente@...aro.org>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
linux-block <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>,
Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
Oleksandr Natalenko <oleksandr@...alenko.name>
Subject: Re: bug in tag handling in blk-mq?
On 5/9/18 10:57 AM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Wed, 2018-05-09 at 09:18 -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> On 5/8/18 10:11 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>>> On Tue, 2018-05-08 at 19:09 -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Alright, I managed to reproduce it. What I think is happening is that
>>>> BFQ is limiting the inflight case to something less than the wake
>>>> batch for sbitmap, which can lead to stalls. I don't have time to test
>>>> this tonight, but perhaps you can give it a go when you are back at it.
>>>> If not, I'll try tomorrow morning.
>>>>
>>>> If this is the issue, I can turn it into a real patch. This is just to
>>>> confirm that the issue goes away with the below.
>>>
>>> Confirmed. Impressive high speed bug stomping.
>>
>> Well, that's good news. Can I get you to try this patch?
>
> Sure thing. The original hang (minus provocation patch) being
> annoyingly non-deterministic, this will (hopefully) take a while.
You can verify with the provocation patch as well first, if you wish.
Just need to hand-apply since it'll conflict with this patch in
bfq. But it's a trivial resolve.
--
Jens Axboe
Powered by blists - more mailing lists