On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 3:33 PM, Chris Worley <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 3:31 PM, Chris Worley <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 5:58 AM, Vladislav Bolkhovitin <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Chris Worley, on 09/06/2009 05:41 PM wrote: >>>> >>>> On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 3:36 PM, Chris Worley<[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 3:17 PM, Bart Van Assche<[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 1:20 AM, Chris Worley <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 11:38 AM, Chris Worley<[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I've used a couple of initiators (different systems) w/ different >>>>>>>> OSes, w/ different IB cards (all QDR) and different IB stacks >>>>>>>> (built-in vs. OFED) and can repeat the problem in all but the >>>>>>>> RHEL5.2/OFED 1.4.1 target and initiator (but, if the initiator is >>>>>>>> WinOF and the target is RHEL5.2/OFED1.4.1, then the problem does >>>>>>>> repeat). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Here's a twist: I used the Ubuntu initiator w/ one of the RHEL >>>>>>> targets, and the RHEL initiator (same machine as was running WinOF >>>>>>> from the beginning of this thread) w/ one of the Ubuntu targets: in >>>>>>> both cases, the problem does not repeat. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That makes it sound like OFED is the cure on either side of the >>>>>>> connection, but does not explain the issue w/ WinOF (which does fail >>>>>>> w/ either Ununtu or RHEL targets). >>>>>> >>>>>> These results are strange. Regarding the Linux-only tests, I was >>>>>> assuming failure of a single component (Ubuntu SRP initiator, OFED SRP >>>>>> initiator, Ubuntu IB driver, OFED IB driver or SRP target), but for >>>>>> each of these components there is at least one test that passes and at >>>>>> least one test that fails. So either my assumption is wrong or one of >>>>>> the above test results is not repeatable. Do you have the time to >>>>>> repeat the Linux-only tests ? >>>>> >>>>> Last night I was rerunning the RHEL5.2 initiator w/ Ubuntu client, and >>>>> the problem repeated; now, I can't repeat the case where it didn't >>>>> fail. Still, no errors, other than the eventual timeouts previously >>>>> shown; the target thinks all is fine, the initiator is stuck. >>>> >>>> ... and I haven't had any success w/ Ubuntu target and initiator, 8.10 or >>>> 9.04. >>> >>> 1. Try with kernel parameter maxcpus=1. It will somehow relax possible races >>> you have, although not completely. >> >> I finally got around to this test... 1 CPU works very well, w/o hangs >> (will test all night to see if this holds true),
This has run through 1KB-8KB blocks for nearly 24 hours w/o error. The single core case seems to work. Chris > 2 or more don't. >> This is dual-socket NHM, so I can't specify more than one processor >> w/o getting more than one socket. > > I don't know if this is important, but 1KB block tests didn't have a > problem w/ 2 or 4 maxcpus... they didn't hang until 2KB blocks: > > fio --rw=randrw --bs=2k --rwmixread=100 --numjobs=64 --iodepth=64 > --sync=0 --direct=1 --randrepeat=0 --ioengine=libaio > --filename=/dev/sdb --filename=/dev/sdc --name=test --loops=10000 > --size=32183006002 --runtime=600 --group_reporting > > Chris >> >> Chris >>> >>> 2. Try with another hardware, including motherboard. You can have something >>> like http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/7/31/558 (not exactly it, of course) >>> >>>> Chris >>>>> >>>>> Chris >>>>>> >>>>>> Bart. >>>>>> >>> >>> >> > _______________________________________________ general mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
