On Sat, Nov 04, 2017 at 12:47:31AM +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 03, 2017 at 12:13:09PM -0400, Laurence Oberman wrote:
> > Hi
> > I had it working some time back. I am off today to take my son to the
> > doctor.
> > I will get Bart's test working again this weekend.
>
> Hello Laurence and
On Fri, Nov 03, 2017 at 12:13:09PM -0400, Laurence Oberman wrote:
> Hi
> I had it working some time back. I am off today to take my son to the
> doctor.
> I will get Bart's test working again this weekend.
Hello Laurence and Bart,
Just found srp-test starts to work now with v4.14-rc4 kernel, and
On Fri, 2017-11-03 at 23:47 +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> Forget to mention, there is failure when running 'make' under srp-test
> because shellcheck package is missed in RHEL7. Can that be the issue
> of test failure? If yes, could you provide a special version of srp-test
> which doesn't depend on
On Fri, 2017-11-03 at 23:18 +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> BTW, Laurence found there is kernel crash in his IB/SRP test when running
> for-next branch of block tree, so we just test v4.14-rc4 w/wo my blk-mq
> patches.
One fix for a *sporadic* initiator crash has been queued for the v4.15 merge
window.
On Fri, Nov 03, 2017 at 03:23:14PM +, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On Fri, 2017-11-03 at 11:50 +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 03, 2017 at 02:42:50AM +, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2017-11-03 at 10:12 +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> > > > [root@ibclient srp-test]# ./run_tests
> > > >
On Fri, 2017-11-03 at 23:18 +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> Subject: [PATCH] SCSI_MQ: fix IO hang in case of queue busy
>
> We have to insert the rq back before checking .device_busy,
> otherwise When IO completes just after the check and before
> this req is added to hctx->dispatch, this queue may
On Fri, 2017-11-03 at 11:50 +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 03, 2017 at 02:42:50AM +, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> > On Fri, 2017-11-03 at 10:12 +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> > > [root@ibclient srp-test]# ./run_tests
> > > modprobe: FATAL: Module target_core_mod is in use.
> >
> > LIO must be
On Fri, Nov 03, 2017 at 02:42:50AM +, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On Fri, 2017-11-03 at 10:12 +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> > [root@ibclient srp-test]# ./run_tests
> > modprobe: FATAL: Module target_core_mod is in use.
>
> LIO must be unloaded before srp-test software is started.
Hi Bart,
Even with
On Fri, Nov 03, 2017 at 02:42:50AM +, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On Fri, 2017-11-03 at 10:12 +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> > [root@ibclient srp-test]# ./run_tests
> > modprobe: FATAL: Module target_core_mod is in use.
>
> LIO must be unloaded before srp-test software is started.
Yeah, I can make
On Fri, 2017-11-03 at 10:12 +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> [root@ibclient srp-test]# ./run_tests
> modprobe: FATAL: Module target_core_mod is in use.
LIO must be unloaded before srp-test software is started.
Bart.
Hi Laurence,
On Thu, Nov 02, 2017 at 09:16:04PM -0400, Laurence Oberman wrote:
> Hi Ming
> I have used Bart's tests on my test bed they should run fine.
> Are you using my SRP setup.
Yeah, I am using your SRP setup.
Once the three directories are created, I saw the new failure,
and both ib/srp
On Fri, 2017-11-03 at 08:15 +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 02, 2017 at 11:54:57PM +, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> > On Fri, 2017-11-03 at 07:48 +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> > > Could you please share your srp-tests script? I may find a IB/SRP system
> > > to see if I can reproduce this issue and
On Thu, Nov 02, 2017 at 11:54:57PM +, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On Fri, 2017-11-03 at 07:48 +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> > Could you please share your srp-tests script? I may find a IB/SRP system
> > to see if I can reproduce this issue and figure out one solution.
>
> Please have a look at
On Fri, 2017-11-03 at 07:48 +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> Could you please share your srp-tests script? I may find a IB/SRP system
> to see if I can reproduce this issue and figure out one solution.
Please have a look at https://github.com/bvanassche/srp-test.
Bart.
On Thu, Nov 02, 2017 at 11:43:55PM +, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On Fri, 2017-11-03 at 07:38 +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 02, 2017 at 03:57:05PM +, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2017-11-01 at 08:21 -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > > > Fixed that up, and applied these two patches
On Fri, 2017-11-03 at 07:38 +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 02, 2017 at 03:57:05PM +, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> > On Wed, 2017-11-01 at 08:21 -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > > Fixed that up, and applied these two patches as well.
> >
> > Hello Jens,
> >
> > Recently I noticed that a test
On Thu, Nov 02, 2017 at 03:57:05PM +, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On Wed, 2017-11-01 at 08:21 -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > Fixed that up, and applied these two patches as well.
>
> Hello Jens,
>
> Recently I noticed that a test system sporadically hangs during boot (Dell
> PowerEdge R720 that
On Wed, 2017-11-01 at 08:21 -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
> Fixed that up, and applied these two patches as well.
Hello Jens,
Recently I noticed that a test system sporadically hangs during boot (Dell
PowerEdge R720 that boots from a hard disk connected to a MegaRAID SAS adapter)
and also that
On Wed, Nov 01, 2017 at 05:09:41PM +, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On Thu, 2017-11-02 at 00:59 +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> > The commit has described clearly that we don't need to iterate over all hw
> > queue when completing an I/O.
>
> You quoted a small part of the description of commit
On Thu, 2017-11-02 at 00:59 +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> The commit has described clearly that we don't need to iterate over all hw
> queue when completing an I/O.
You quoted a small part of the description of commit da55f2cc7841 and left out
the part that shows that what you wrote above is not
On Wed, Nov 01, 2017 at 04:47:06PM +, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On Wed, 2017-11-01 at 12:08 +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 01, 2017 at 03:54:09AM +, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2017-10-31 at 09:47 +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 08:24:57PM +, Bart
On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 9:33 PM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On Fri, 2017-10-27 at 19:55 +0200, Roman Penyaev wrote:
>> That's just a bug in code, not a in issue with restarts, which can be fixed
>> if we put hctx which are needed to be restarted in percpu lists and avoid
>>
On Wed, 2017-11-01 at 12:08 +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 01, 2017 at 03:54:09AM +, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> > On Tue, 2017-10-31 at 09:47 +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> > > On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 08:24:57PM +, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 2017-10-27 at 13:38 +0800, Ming Lei
On 10/31/2017 08:03 PM, Ming Lei wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 07:53:03PM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>
>>> On Oct 31, 2017, at 7:46 PM, Ming Lei wrote:
>>>
On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 02:29:32PM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 10/26/2017 10:43 PM, Ming Lei wrote:
>
On Wed, Nov 01, 2017 at 03:54:09AM +, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On Tue, 2017-10-31 at 09:47 +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 08:24:57PM +, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2017-10-27 at 13:38 +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 04:53:18AM +, Bart
On Tue, 2017-10-31 at 09:47 +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 08:24:57PM +, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> > On Fri, 2017-10-27 at 13:38 +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> > > On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 04:53:18AM +, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 2017-10-27 at 12:43 +0800, Ming Lei
On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 07:53:03PM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
>
> > On Oct 31, 2017, at 7:46 PM, Ming Lei wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 02:29:32PM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
> >>> On 10/26/2017 10:43 PM, Ming Lei wrote:
> >>> Hi Jens,
> >>>
> >>> The 1st patch
> On Oct 31, 2017, at 7:46 PM, Ming Lei wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 02:29:32PM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>> On 10/26/2017 10:43 PM, Ming Lei wrote:
>>> Hi Jens,
>>>
>>> The 1st patch removes the RESTART for TAG-SHARED because SCSI handles it
>>> by itself, and not
On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 02:29:32PM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 10/26/2017 10:43 PM, Ming Lei wrote:
> > Hi Jens,
> >
> > The 1st patch removes the RESTART for TAG-SHARED because SCSI handles it
> > by itself, and not necessary to waste CPU to do the expensive RESTART.
> > And Roman Pen reported
On 10/26/2017 10:43 PM, Ming Lei wrote:
> Hi Jens,
>
> The 1st patch removes the RESTART for TAG-SHARED because SCSI handles it
> by itself, and not necessary to waste CPU to do the expensive RESTART.
> And Roman Pen reported that this RESTART cuts half of IOPS in his case.
>
> The 2nd patch
On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 08:24:57PM +, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On Fri, 2017-10-27 at 13:38 +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 04:53:18AM +, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2017-10-27 at 12:43 +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> > > > The 1st patch removes the RESTART for
On Fri, 2017-10-27 at 13:38 +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 04:53:18AM +, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> > On Fri, 2017-10-27 at 12:43 +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> > > The 1st patch removes the RESTART for TAG-SHARED because SCSI handles it
> > > by itself, and not necessary to waste
Hi Roman,
On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 07:55:33PM +0200, Roman Penyaev wrote:
> Hi Ming,
>
> On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 7:38 AM, Ming Lei wrote:
> > Hello Bart,
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 04:53:18AM +, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> >> On Fri, 2017-10-27 at 12:43 +0800, Ming Lei
Hello Bart,
On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 04:53:18AM +, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On Fri, 2017-10-27 at 12:43 +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> > The 1st patch removes the RESTART for TAG-SHARED because SCSI handles it
> > by itself, and not necessary to waste CPU to do the expensive RESTART.
> > And Roman
On Fri, 2017-10-27 at 12:43 +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> The 1st patch removes the RESTART for TAG-SHARED because SCSI handles it
> by itself, and not necessary to waste CPU to do the expensive RESTART.
> And Roman Pen reported that this RESTART cuts half of IOPS in his case.
>
> The 2nd patch
Hi Jens,
The 1st patch removes the RESTART for TAG-SHARED because SCSI handles it
by itself, and not necessary to waste CPU to do the expensive RESTART.
And Roman Pen reported that this RESTART cuts half of IOPS in his case.
The 2nd patch removes the RESTART when .get_budget returns
36 matches
Mail list logo