On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 01:13:43AM +, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On Tue, 2017-12-05 at 09:04 +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> > Then no reason to revert commit(0df21c86bdbf scsi: implement .get_budget an
> > .put_budget for blk-mq) for one issue which may never happen in reality
> > since
> > this
On Tue, 2017-12-05 at 09:04 +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> Then no reason to revert commit(0df21c86bdbf scsi: implement .get_budget an
> .put_budget for blk-mq) for one issue which may never happen in reality since
> this reproducer need out-of-tree patch.
Sorry but I disagree completely. You seem to
On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 12:29:59AM +, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On Tue, 2017-12-05 at 08:20 +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> > Also it is a bit odd to see request in hctx->dispatch now, and it can only
> > happen now when scsi_target_queue_ready() returns false, so I guess you
> > apply
> > some
On Tue, 2017-12-05 at 08:20 +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> Also it is a bit odd to see request in hctx->dispatch now, and it can only
> happen now when scsi_target_queue_ready() returns false, so I guess you apply
> some change on target->can_queue(such as setting it as 1 in srp/ib code
> manually)?
On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 11:32:27PM +, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On Tue, 2017-12-05 at 07:01 +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 10:48:18PM +, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2017-12-05 at 06:42 +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 09:30:32AM -0800, Bart
On Tue, 2017-12-05 at 07:01 +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 10:48:18PM +, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> > On Tue, 2017-12-05 at 06:42 +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> > > On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 09:30:32AM -0800, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> > > > * A systematic lockup for SCSI queues with
On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 10:48:18PM +, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On Tue, 2017-12-05 at 06:42 +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 09:30:32AM -0800, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> > > * A systematic lockup for SCSI queues with queue depth 1. The
> > > following test reproduces that bug
On Tue, 2017-12-05 at 06:42 +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 09:30:32AM -0800, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> > * A systematic lockup for SCSI queues with queue depth 1. The
> > following test reproduces that bug systematically:
> > - Change the SRP initiator such that SCSI target
On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 09:30:32AM -0800, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> Commit 0df21c86bdbf introduced several bugs:
> * A SCSI queue stall for queue depths > 1, addressed by commit
> 88022d7201e9 ("blk-mq: don't handle failure in .get_budget")
This one is committed already.
> * A systematic lockup
Commit 0df21c86bdbf introduced several bugs:
* A SCSI queue stall for queue depths > 1, addressed by commit
88022d7201e9 ("blk-mq: don't handle failure in .get_budget")
* A systematic lockup for SCSI queues with queue depth 1. The
following test reproduces that bug systematically:
- Change
10 matches
Mail list logo
