Re: [PATCH 03/11] fs: add frozen sb state helpers

On Wed 29-11-17 15:23:48, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > The question of whether or not a superblock is frozen needs to be > augmented in the future to account for differences between a user > initiated freeze and a kernel initiated freeze done automatically > on behalf of the kernel. > > Provide

Re: [PATCH 00/11] fs: use freeze_fs on suspend/hibernate

On Fri, 1 Dec 2017, Yu Chen wrote: > BTW, is nfs able to be included in this set? I also encountered a > freeze() failure due to nfs access during that stage recently. The freezer usage in NFS is magnitudes more complicated, so it makes sense to first go after the lower hanging fruit to figure

Re: [RFC] md: make queue limits depending on limits of RAID members

Mariusz, >>> One potential solution for that is to change type of some queue limits >>> (at least discard_granularity and discard_alignment, maybe more, like >>> max_discard_sectors?) from 32 bits to 64 bits. You're still restricted by the max bio size which is 32 bits on 32-bit platforms. >

Re: [PATCH 07/11] xfs: remove not needed freezing calls

On Wed 29-11-17 15:23:52, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > This removes superflous freezer calls as they are no longer needed > as the VFS now performs filesystem freezing/thaw if the filesystem has > support for it. > > The following Coccinelle rule was used as follows: > > spatch --sp-file

Re: [PATCH 00/11] fs: use freeze_fs on suspend/hibernate

On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 7:23 AM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > This is a followup from the original RFC which proposed to start > to kill kthread freezing all together [0]. Instead of going straight > out to the jugular for kthread freezing this series only addresses > killing

Re: [PATCH 00/11] fs: use freeze_fs on suspend/hibernate

On Wed, 2017-11-29 at 15:23 -0800, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > This is a followup from the original RFC which proposed to start > to kill kthread freezing all together [0]. Instead of going straight > out to the jugular for kthread freezing this series only addresses > killing freezer calls on

Re: [PATCH] nbd: set discard granularity properly

Josef, > For some reason we had discard granularity set to 512 always even when > discards were disabled. Fix this by having the default be 0, and then > if we turn it on set the discard granularity to the blocksize. Originally, discard_max_bytes was the queue limit used to indicate whether

Re: [PATCH 00/11] fs: use freeze_fs on suspend/hibernate

On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 12:41 AM, Jiri Kosina wrote: > On Fri, 1 Dec 2017, Yu Chen wrote: > >> BTW, is nfs able to be included in this set? I also encountered a >> freeze() failure due to nfs access during that stage recently. > > The freezer usage in NFS is magnitudes more

Re: [PATCH 05/11] fs: add iterate_supers_excl() and iterate_supers_reverse_excl()

On Wed 29-11-17 15:23:50, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > There are use cases where we wish to traverse the superblock list > but also capture errors, and in which case we want to avoid having > our callers issue a lock themselves since we can do the locking for > the callers. Provide a

Re: [PATCH 02/11] fs: provide unlocked helper thaw_super()

On Wed 29-11-17 15:23:47, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > thaw_super() hold a write lock, however we wish to also enable > callers which already hold the write lock. To do this provide a helper > and make thaw_super() use it. This way, all that thaw_super() does > now is lock handling and active count

Re: [PATCH 01/11] fs: provide unlocked helper for freeze_super()

On Wed 29-11-17 15:23:46, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > freeze_super() holds a write lock, however we wish to also enable > callers which already hold the write lock. To do this provide a helper > and make freeze_super() use it. This way, all that freeze_super() does > now is lock handling and active

Re: [PATCH 07/11] xfs: remove not needed freezing calls

On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 5:21 PM, Jan Kara wrote: > On Wed 29-11-17 15:23:52, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: >> This removes superflous freezer calls as they are no longer needed >> as the VFS now performs filesystem freezing/thaw if the filesystem has >> support for it. >> >> The

Re: [PATCH 00/11] fs: use freeze_fs on suspend/hibernate

On Thu, 2017-11-30 at 20:42 +0100, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 05:01:13PM +, Bart Van Assche wrote: > > The md resync > > thread must be stopped before a system is frozen. Today the md driver uses > > the kthread freezing mechanism for that purpose. Do you have a plan

Re: [PATCH 00/11] fs: use freeze_fs on suspend/hibernate

On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 08:53:52PM +, Bart Van Assche wrote: > On Thu, 2017-11-30 at 20:42 +0100, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 05:01:13PM +, Bart Van Assche wrote: > > > The md resync > > > thread must be stopped before a system is frozen. Today the md driver uses >

[GIT PULL] Block fixes for 4.15-rc

Hi Linus, A selection of fixes/changes that should make it into this series. This pull request contains: - NVMe, two merges, containing: - pci-e, rdma, and fc fixes - Device quirks - Fix for a badblocks leak in null_blk - Pull bcache fixes from Michael Lyle. Most important is a

Re: [PATCH] block, bfq: remove batches of confusing ifdefs

On 11/28/2017 02:37 AM, Paolo Valente wrote: > Commit a33801e8b473 ("block, bfq: move debug blkio stats behind > CONFIG_DEBUG_BLK_CGROUP") introduced two batches of confusing ifdefs: > one reported in [1], plus a similar one in another function. This > commit removes both batches, in the way

Re: [GIT PULL] Block fixes for 4.15-rc

On 11/30/2017 02:58 PM, Michael Lyle wrote: > Hi Linus & Jens-- > > Just one small clarification: > > On 11/30/2017 01:14 PM, Jens Axboe wrote: >> - Pull bcache fixes from Michael Lyle. Most important is a regression >> fix for a case where bcache could return the wrong data in some >>

Re: [PATCH 00/11] fs: use freeze_fs on suspend/hibernate

Hi! > Proposed solution: > > Instead of fixing such semantics and trying to get all filesystems to do it > right, we can easily do away with all freezing calls if the filesystem > implements a proper freeze_fs() callback. The following 9 filesystems have > freeze_fs() implemented as such we can

Re: [GIT PULL] Block fixes for 4.15-rc

Hi Linus & Jens-- Just one small clarification: On 11/30/2017 01:14 PM, Jens Axboe wrote: > - Pull bcache fixes from Michael Lyle. Most important is a regression > fix for a case where bcache could return the wrong data in some > circumstances. The fix for the block-layer data corruption

Re: [PATCH 03/11] fs: add frozen sb state helpers

On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 06:13:10PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote: > ... I dislike the _by_user() suffix as there may be different places that > call freeze_super() (e.g. device mapper does this during some operations). > Clearly we need to distinguish "by system suspend" and "the other" cases. > So please

[PATCH 5/7] blk-mq: Avoid that blk_mq_mark_tag_wait() triggers a queue stall

The blk_mq_sched_restart() call from inside blk_mq_free_request() only runs those queues for which BLK_MQ_S_SCHED_RESTART has been set. Hence set that flag from inside blk_mq_mark_tag_wait() whether or not a queue is shared. Signed-off-by: Bart Van Assche Cc: Ming Lei

[PATCH 0/7] blk-mq: Queue running fixes

Hello Jens, This patch series fixes the issues I came across while reviewing and testing the v4.15-rc1 block layer. Please consider these patches for v4.15-rc / v4.16 as appropriate. Thanks, Bart. Bart Van Assche (7): blk-mq: Fix spelling in a source code comment block: Document more

[PATCH 3/7] blk-mq: Make blk_mq_mark_tag_wait() easier to read

Reduce the number of return statements from three to one. Reduce the number of spin_unlock(_hctx->lock) calls from two to one. Fix a misleading comment: since blk-mq-tag.c always uses wake_up_all() other waiters are woken up whether or not the current hctx is removed from the wait list. This patch

[PATCH 1/7] blk-mq: Fix spelling in a source code comment

Change "nedeing" into "needing" and "caes" into "cases". Fixes: commit f906a6a0f426 ("blk-mq: improve tag waiting setup for non-shared tags") Signed-off-by: Bart Van Assche Cc: Christoph Hellwig Cc: Omar Sandoval Cc: Hannes Reinecke

[PATCH 2/7] block: Document more locking requirements

This patch does not change any functionality. Signed-off-by: Bart Van Assche Cc: Christoph Hellwig Cc: Hannes Reinecke Cc: Johannes Thumshirn --- block/blk-mq.c | 13 +++-- block/blk-timeout.c | 3 +++ 2

[PATCH 4/7] blk-mq: Avoid that request processing stalls when sharing tags

blk_mq_sched_mark_restart_hctx() must be called before blk_mq_dispatch_rq_list() is called. Make sure that BLK_MQ_S_SCHED_RESTART is set before any blk_mq_dispatch_rq_list() call occurs. Fixes: commit b347689ffbca ("blk-mq-sched: improve dispatching from sw queue") Signed-off-by: Bart Van Assche

[PATCH 7/7] blk-mq: Fix another queue stall

The following code at the end of blk_mq_dispatch_rq_list() detects whether or not wake_up(>dispatch_wait) has been called concurrently with pushing back requests onto the dispatch list: list_empty_careful(>dispatch_wait.entry) Since blk_mq_dispatch_wake() is protected by another lock than

[PATCH 6/7] blk-mq: Rerun hardware queues after having called .put_budget()

During request dispatch, after a scheduler or per-CPU queue has been examined, .put_budget() is called if the examined queue is empty. Since a new request may be queued concurrently with the .put_budget() call, a request queue needs to be rerun after each .put_budget() call. Fixes: commit

Re: [PATCH 00/11] fs: use freeze_fs on suspend/hibernate

On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 10:51:57PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote: > Hi! > > > Proposed solution: > > > > Instead of fixing such semantics and trying to get all filesystems to do it > > right, we can easily do away with all freezing calls if the filesystem > > implements a proper freeze_fs()

Re: [PATCH 07/11] xfs: remove not needed freezing calls

On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 09:32:53PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 5:21 PM, Jan Kara wrote: > > On Wed 29-11-17 15:23:52, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > >> This removes superflous freezer calls as they are no longer needed > >> as the VFS now performs

Re: [PATCH 07/11] xfs: remove not needed freezing calls

On Friday, December 1, 2017 12:30:33 AM CET Dave Chinner wrote: > On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 09:32:53PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 5:21 PM, Jan Kara wrote: > > > On Wed 29-11-17 15:23:52, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > >> This removes superflous freezer

Re: [PATCH V2 1/5] dm-mpath: don't call blk_mq_delay_run_hw_queue() in case of BLK_STS_RESOURCE

On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 05:14:46PM +, Bart Van Assche wrote: > On Mon, 2017-11-27 at 13:07 +0800, Ming Lei wrote: > > If .queue_rq() returns BLK_STS_RESOURCE, blk-mq will rerun the queue in > > the three situations: > > > > 1) if BLK_MQ_S_SCHED_RESTART is set > > - queue is rerun after one rq

Re: [PATCH 7/7] blk-mq: Fix another queue stall

On 11/30/2017 05:08 PM, Bart Van Assche wrote: > The following code at the end of blk_mq_dispatch_rq_list() detects > whether or not wake_up(>dispatch_wait) has been called > concurrently with pushing back requests onto the dispatch list: > > list_empty_careful(>dispatch_wait.entry) > >

Re: [PATCH 6/7] blk-mq: Rerun hardware queues after having called .put_budget()

On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 04:08:47PM -0800, Bart Van Assche wrote: > During request dispatch, after a scheduler or per-CPU queue has > been examined, .put_budget() is called if the examined queue is > empty. Since a new request may be queued concurrently with the > .put_budget() call, a request

Re: [PATCH 4/7] blk-mq: Avoid that request processing stalls when sharing tags

On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 04:08:45PM -0800, Bart Van Assche wrote: > blk_mq_sched_mark_restart_hctx() must be called before Could you please describe the theory on commit log? Like, why is it a must? and what is the issue to be fixed? > blk_mq_dispatch_rq_list() is called. Make sure that >

Re: [PATCH 2/7] block: Document more locking requirements

On 11/30/2017 05:08 PM, Bart Van Assche wrote: > This patch does not change any functionality. Unless these actually found real bugs, I think it's pointless. Add a comment. And this: > @@ -1003,9 +1007,14 @@ bool blk_mq_get_driver_tag(struct request *rq, struct > blk_mq_hw_ctx **hctx, >

Re: [PATCH 5/7] blk-mq: Avoid that blk_mq_mark_tag_wait() triggers a queue stall

On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 04:08:46PM -0800, Bart Van Assche wrote: > The blk_mq_sched_restart() call from inside blk_mq_free_request() > only runs those queues for which BLK_MQ_S_SCHED_RESTART has been > set. Hence set that flag from inside blk_mq_mark_tag_wait() whether > or not a queue is shared.

[PATCH] block: Set BIO_TRACE_COMPLETION on new bio during split

From: Goldwyn Rodrigues Fixes: fbbaf700e7b1 ("block: trace completion of all bios.") Signed-off-by: Goldwyn Rodrigues --- block/bio.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/block/bio.c b/block/bio.c index

Re: [RFC] md: make queue limits depending on limits of RAID members

Hi, do you have any comments to this? Regards, Mariusz On 11/22/2017 09:12 AM, Mariusz Dabrowski wrote: On 11/17/2017 07:40 PM, Shaohua Li wrote: On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 11:25:12AM +0100, Mariusz Dabrowski wrote: Hi all, In order to be compliant with a pass-throug drive behavior, RAID

blk-mq + bfq IO hangs after writing partition table

Hi, I think I am triggering a blk-mq + bfq bug that I can reproduce 100% of the time by using gdisk (1.0.1-1 in Debian stretch) to write a partition table to a USB flash drive. After it is triggered, IO hangs forever to that device and the machine cannot be shut down cleanly. I have reproduced