Re: usercopy whitelist woe in scsi_sense_cache

> Il giorno 18 apr 2018, alle ore 16:30, Jens Axboe ha > scritto: > > On 4/18/18 3:08 AM, Paolo Valente wrote: >> >> >>> Il giorno 18 apr 2018, alle ore 00:57, Jens Axboe ha >>> scritto: >>> >>> On 4/17/18 3:48 PM, Jens Axboe wrote: On 4/17/18 3:47

Re: [PATCH] block: Avoid executing a report or reset zones while a queue is frozen

On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 05:35:07PM +, Bart Van Assche wrote: > > Hmm. I think we need to avoid clearing that data and update it using > > RCU instead. Calling blk_queue_enter before submitting bios is > > something that would make zone reporting very different from any > > other block layer

Re: [LSF/MM] schedule suggestion

On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 11:55:08AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 05:19:39PM -0400, Jerome Glisse wrote: > > Just wanted to suggest to push HMM status down one slot in the > > agenda to avoid having FS and MM first going into their own > > room and then merging back for GUP

Re: [RFC PATCH 00/79] Generic page write protection and a solution to page waitqueue

On Wed 18-04-18 11:54:30, Jerome Glisse wrote: > > Overall I think you'd need to make a good benchmarking comparison showing > > how much this helps some real workloads (your motivation) and also how > > other loads on lower end machines are affected. > > Do you have any specific benchmark you

lockdep splats with blk-mq drivers

Since commit 1d9bd5161ba3 ("blk-mq: replace timeout synchronization with a RCU and generation based scheme") I observe lockdep complaints (full message attached): [ 21.763369]CPU0CPU1 [ 21.763370] [ 21.763371]

Re: [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: Remove me as maintainer of bcache

On 4/19/18 7:25 PM, Coly Li wrote: > On 2018/4/20 3:17 AM, Jens Axboe wrote: >> On 4/19/18 1:11 PM, Michael Lyle wrote: >>> On 04/19/2018 11:10 AM, Jens Axboe wrote: On 4/19/18 11:59 AM, Michael Lyle wrote: > Too much to do with other projects. I've enjoyed working with everyone >

Re:question about request merge

Hi, Shaohua I found it indeed doesn't do front merge when two threads flush plug list concurrently. To reappear , I prepared two IO threads , named a0.io and a1.io . Thread a1.io uses libaio to write 5 requests : sectors: 16 + 8, 40 + 8, 64 + 8, 88 + 8, 112 + 8 Thread a0.io uses

Re: [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: Remove me as maintainer of bcache

On 04/19/2018 09:17 PM, Jens Axboe wrote: > On 4/19/18 1:11 PM, Michael Lyle wrote: >> On 04/19/2018 11:10 AM, Jens Axboe wrote: >>> On 4/19/18 11:59 AM, Michael Lyle wrote: Too much to do with other projects. I've enjoyed working with everyone here, and hope to occasionally contribute

Re: [PATCH 1/2] blkcg: small fix on comment in blkcg_init_queue

On 4/18/18 10:04 PM, Jiang Biao wrote: > The comment before blkg_create() in blkcg_init_queue() was moved > from blkcg_activate_policy() by commit ec13b1d6f0a0457312e615, but > it does not suit for the new context. Applied - btw, in the future, if you send more than one patch in a series, please

Re: [LSF/MM] schedule suggestion

On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 10:38:25AM -0400, Jerome Glisse wrote: > Oh can i get one more small slot for fs ? I want to ask if they are > any people against having a callback everytime a struct file is added > to a task_struct and also having a secondary array so that special > file like device file

Re: [LSF/MM] schedule suggestion

Chris, >> I'd like to propose that we compact the fs sessions so that we get a >> 3-slot session reserved for "Individual filesystem discussions" one >> afternoon. That way we've got time in the schedule for the all the >> ext4/btrfs/XFS/NFS/CIFS devs to get together with each other and >> talk

Re: [LSF/MM] schedule suggestion

On 18 Apr 2018, at 21:55, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 05:19:39PM -0400, Jerome Glisse wrote: >> Just wanted to suggest to push HMM status down one slot in the >> agenda to avoid having FS and MM first going into their own >> room and then merging back for GUP and DAX, and

Re: [LSF/MM] schedule suggestion

On Thu, 2018-04-19 at 13:26 -0400, Jerome Glisse wrote: > On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 12:58:39PM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote: > > On Thu, 2018-04-19 at 12:30 -0400, Jerome Glisse wrote: > > > On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 07:43:56AM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > > > On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 10:38:25AM -0400,

Re: [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: Remove me as maintainer of bcache

On 4/19/18 11:59 AM, Michael Lyle wrote: > Too much to do with other projects. I've enjoyed working with everyone > here, and hope to occasionally contribute on bcache. It's been a pleasure having someone maintain it upstream, so this is pretty sad. Do you have anyone in mind for taking over

[LSF/MM TOPIC] Extended copy

During a recent discussion about peer-to-peer PCIe transfers it was brought up that it would be desirable to invoke this functionality from user space. One possible approach is to add support for an "extended copy" operation to the block layer and to make it possible to use that functionality from

Re: [PATCH blktests] scsi/004: add regression test for false BLK_STS_OK with non good SAM status

On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 11:03:37AM +0200, Steffen Maier wrote: > Signed-off-by: Steffen Maier > --- > tests/scsi/004 | 59 > > tests/scsi/004.out |3 ++ > 2 files changed, 62 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) >

[PATCH] MAINTAINERS: Remove me as maintainer of bcache

Too much to do with other projects. I've enjoyed working with everyone here, and hope to occasionally contribute on bcache. Signed-off-by: Michael Lyle --- MAINTAINERS | 1 - 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS index f9bf4651db41..9fd861906832

Re: extra part in bcache patch commit 539d39eb2708

Hi everyone-- On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 10:17 PM, Coly Li wrote: > Hi Michael and Jens > > When I do back port of bcache patches, I find commit 539d39eb2708 > ("bcache: fix wrong return value in bch_debug_init()") has extra part > from the original patch which Junhui Tanng posted.

Re: [LSF/MM] schedule suggestion

On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 07:43:56AM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 10:38:25AM -0400, Jerome Glisse wrote: > > Oh can i get one more small slot for fs ? I want to ask if they are > > any people against having a callback everytime a struct file is added > > to a task_struct

[PATCH v6] blk-mq: Avoid that a completion can be ignored for BLK_EH_RESET_TIMER

The blk-mq timeout handling code ignores completions that occur after blk_mq_check_expired() has been called and before blk_mq_rq_timed_out() has reset rq->aborted_gstate. If a block driver timeout handler always returns BLK_EH_RESET_TIMER then the result will be that the request never terminates.

Re: [LSF/MM] schedule suggestion

On Thu, 2018-04-19 at 12:30 -0400, Jerome Glisse wrote: > On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 07:43:56AM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 10:38:25AM -0400, Jerome Glisse wrote: > > > Oh can i get one more small slot for fs ? I want to ask if they are > > > any people against having a

Re: [PATCH] bsg referencing bus driver module

+linux-block On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 1:05 PM, Anatoliy Glagolev wrote: > Description: bsg_release may crash while decrementing reference to the > parent device with the following stack: > > [16834.636216,07] Call Trace: > ...

Re: [PATCH 1/2] blkcg: small fix on comment in blkcg_init_queue

On 4/19/18 11:10 AM, Randy Dunlap wrote: > On 04/19/18 07:52, Jens Axboe wrote: >> On 4/18/18 10:04 PM, Jiang Biao wrote: >>> The comment before blkg_create() in blkcg_init_queue() was moved >>> from blkcg_activate_policy() by commit ec13b1d6f0a0457312e615, but >>> it does not suit for the new

Re: [LSF/MM] schedule suggestion

On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 12:58:39PM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote: > On Thu, 2018-04-19 at 12:30 -0400, Jerome Glisse wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 07:43:56AM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > > On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 10:38:25AM -0400, Jerome Glisse wrote: > > > > Oh can i get one more small slot

Re: [PATCH 1/2] blkcg: small fix on comment in blkcg_init_queue

On 04/19/18 07:52, Jens Axboe wrote: > On 4/18/18 10:04 PM, Jiang Biao wrote: >> The comment before blkg_create() in blkcg_init_queue() was moved >> from blkcg_activate_policy() by commit ec13b1d6f0a0457312e615, but >> it does not suit for the new context. > > Applied - btw, in the future, if you

[PATCH 0/3] Rework write error handling in pblk

From: Hans Holmberg This patch series fixes the(currently incomplete) write error handling in pblk by: * queuing and re-submitting failed writes in the write buffer * evacuating valid data data in lines with write failures, so the chunk(s) with write failures

[PATCH 3/3] lightnvm: pblk: fix smeta write error path

From: Hans Holmberg Smeta write errors were previously ignored. Skip these lines instead and throw them back on the free list, so the chunks will go through a reset cycle before we attempt to use the line again. Signed-off-by: Hans Holmberg

WARNING in __device_add_disk

Hello, syzbot hit the following crash on upstream commit 87ef12027b9b1dd0e0b12cf311fbcb19f9d92539 (Wed Apr 18 19:48:17 2018 +) Merge tag 'ceph-for-4.17-rc2' of git://github.com/ceph/ceph-client syzbot dashboard link: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=3337db851ace689ceb50

Re: [PATCH blktests] scsi/004: add regression test for false BLK_STS_OK with non good SAM status

On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 11:53:30AM -0700, Omar Sandoval wrote: > Thanks for the test! Applied. Side note, it's unfortunate that this test takes 180 seconds to run only because we have to wait for the command timeout. We should be able to export request_queue->rq_timeout writeable in sysfs. Would

Re: [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: Remove me as maintainer of bcache

On 4/19/18 1:11 PM, Michael Lyle wrote: > On 04/19/2018 11:10 AM, Jens Axboe wrote: >> On 4/19/18 11:59 AM, Michael Lyle wrote: >>> Too much to do with other projects. I've enjoyed working with everyone >>> here, and hope to occasionally contribute on bcache. > > Jens--- > >> It's been a

Re: [PATCH blktests] scsi/004: add regression test for false BLK_STS_OK with non good SAM status

On 4/19/18 1:41 PM, Bart Van Assche wrote: > On Thu, 2018-04-19 at 12:13 -0700, Omar Sandoval wrote: >> On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 11:53:30AM -0700, Omar Sandoval wrote: >>> Thanks for the test! Applied. >> >> Side note, it's unfortunate that this test takes 180 seconds to run only >> because we have

Re: [LSF/MM] schedule suggestion

On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 03:31:08PM -0400, Jerome Glisse wrote: > > > Basicly i want a callback in __fd_install(), do_dup2(), dup_fd() and > > > add void * *private_data; to struct fdtable (also a default array to > > > struct files_struct). The callback would be part of struct > > >

Re: [LSF/MM] schedule suggestion

On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 12:56:37PM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 03:31:08PM -0400, Jerome Glisse wrote: > > > > Basicly i want a callback in __fd_install(), do_dup2(), dup_fd() and > > > > add void * *private_data; to struct fdtable (also a default array to > > > > struct

Re: [PATCH blktests] scsi/004: add regression test for false BLK_STS_OK with non good SAM status

On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 01:44:41PM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote: > On 4/19/18 1:41 PM, Bart Van Assche wrote: > > On Thu, 2018-04-19 at 12:13 -0700, Omar Sandoval wrote: > >> On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 11:53:30AM -0700, Omar Sandoval wrote: > >>> Thanks for the test! Applied. > >> > >> Side note, it's

Re: [PATCH 2/2] tracing/events: block: dev_t via driver core for plug and unplug events

On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 06:33:27PM +0200, Steffen Maier wrote: > Hi Greg, > > On 04/15/2018 10:31 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 03:07:18PM +0200, Steffen Maier wrote: > > > diff --git a/include/trace/events/block.h b/include/trace/events/block.h > > > index

Re: [LSF/MM] schedule suggestion

On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 02:31:07PM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote: > On Thu, 2018-04-19 at 13:26 -0400, Jerome Glisse wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 12:58:39PM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote: > > > On Thu, 2018-04-19 at 12:30 -0400, Jerome Glisse wrote: > > > > On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 07:43:56AM -0700,

Re: [LSF/MM] schedule suggestion

On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 04:15:02PM -0400, Jerome Glisse wrote: > On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 12:56:37PM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > > Well scratch that whole idea, i would need to add a new array to task > > > struct which make it a lot less appealing. Hence a better solution is > > > to instead

[LSF/MM] Ride sharing

I hate renting unnecessary cars, and the various transportation companies offer a better deal if multiple people book at once. I'm scheduled to arrive on Sunday at 3:18pm local time if anyone wants to share transport. Does anyone have a wiki we can use to coordinate this?

Re: [PATCH v6] blk-mq: Avoid that a completion can be ignored for BLK_EH_RESET_TIMER

On 4/19/18 10:43 AM, Bart Van Assche wrote: > The blk-mq timeout handling code ignores completions that occur after > blk_mq_check_expired() has been called and before blk_mq_rq_timed_out() > has reset rq->aborted_gstate. If a block driver timeout handler always > returns BLK_EH_RESET_TIMER then

Re: [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: Remove me as maintainer of bcache

On 04/19/2018 11:10 AM, Jens Axboe wrote: > On 4/19/18 11:59 AM, Michael Lyle wrote: >> Too much to do with other projects. I've enjoyed working with everyone >> here, and hope to occasionally contribute on bcache. Jens--- > It's been a pleasure having someone maintain it upstream, so this is >

Re: [PATCH blktests] scsi/004: add regression test for false BLK_STS_OK with non good SAM status

On Thu, 2018-04-19 at 12:13 -0700, Omar Sandoval wrote: > On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 11:53:30AM -0700, Omar Sandoval wrote: > > Thanks for the test! Applied. > > Side note, it's unfortunate that this test takes 180 seconds to run only > because we have to wait for the command timeout. We should be

Re: [PATCH blktests] scsi/004: add regression test for false BLK_STS_OK with non good SAM status

On 4/19/18 1:13 PM, Omar Sandoval wrote: > On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 11:53:30AM -0700, Omar Sandoval wrote: >> Thanks for the test! Applied. > > Side note, it's unfortunate that this test takes 180 seconds to run only > because we have to wait for the command timeout. We should be able to > export

Re: [LSF/MM] schedule suggestion

On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 01:26:10PM -0400, Jerome Glisse wrote: > Basicly i want a callback in __fd_install(), do_dup2(), dup_fd() and > add void * *private_data; to struct fdtable (also a default array to > struct files_struct). The callback would be part of struct file_operations. > and only

Re: [LSF/MM] schedule suggestion

On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 01:25:13PM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 04:15:02PM -0400, Jerome Glisse wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 12:56:37PM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > > > Well scratch that whole idea, i would need to add a new array to task > > > > struct which

Re: [LSF/MM] schedule suggestion

On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 04:15:02PM -0400, Jerome Glisse wrote: > Well like you pointed out what i really want is a 1:1 structure linking > a device struct an a mm_struct. Given that this need to be cleanup when > mm goes away hence tying this to mmu_notifier sounds like a better idea. > > I am

Re: [PATCH 2/2] tracing/events: block: dev_t via driver core for plug and unplug events

On Thu, 2018-04-19 at 12:24 -0700, Omar Sandoval wrote: > We quiesce and freeze the queue before tearing it down, so it won't be > NULL while we're still doing I/O. Cc'ing Bart in case I'm lying to you, > though ;) blk_cleanup_queue() waits until all I/O requests have finished. Since the block

Re: [LSF/MM] Ride sharing

On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 01:34:32PM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > I hate renting unnecessary cars, and the various transportation companies > offer a better deal if multiple people book at once. > > I'm scheduled to arrive on Sunday at 3:18pm local time if anyone wants to > share transport. Does

Re: [LSF/MM] schedule suggestion

On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 05:47:51PM -0400, Jerome Glisse wrote: > On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 10:21:37PM +0100, Al Viro wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 04:58:20PM -0400, Jerome Glisse wrote: > > > > > I need a struct to link part of device context with mm struct for a > > > process. Most of device

Re: [LSF/MM] schedule suggestion

On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 09:39:53PM +0100, Al Viro wrote: > On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 01:25:13PM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 04:15:02PM -0400, Jerome Glisse wrote: > > > On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 12:56:37PM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > > > > Well scratch that whole

Re: [LSF/MM] schedule suggestion

On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 04:58:20PM -0400, Jerome Glisse wrote: > I need a struct to link part of device context with mm struct for a > process. Most of device context is link to the struct file of the > device file (ie process open has a file descriptor for the device > file). Er... You do

Re: [LSF/MM] schedule suggestion

On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 09:33:07PM +0100, Al Viro wrote: > On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 01:26:10PM -0400, Jerome Glisse wrote: > > > Basicly i want a callback in __fd_install(), do_dup2(), dup_fd() and > > add void * *private_data; to struct fdtable (also a default array to > > struct files_struct).

Re: [LSF/MM] schedule suggestion

On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 10:21:37PM +0100, Al Viro wrote: > On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 04:58:20PM -0400, Jerome Glisse wrote: > > > I need a struct to link part of device context with mm struct for a > > process. Most of device context is link to the struct file of the > > device file (ie process

Re: [PATCH] bsg referencing bus driver module

Updated: rebased on recent Linux, cc-ed maintainers per instructions in MAINTAINERS file >From df939b80d02bf37b21efaaef8ede86cfd39b0cb8 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Anatoliy Glagolev Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2018 15:06:06 -0600 Subject: [PATCH] bsg referencing parent module

Re: [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: Remove me as maintainer of bcache

On 2018/4/20 3:17 AM, Jens Axboe wrote: > On 4/19/18 1:11 PM, Michael Lyle wrote: >> On 04/19/2018 11:10 AM, Jens Axboe wrote: >>> On 4/19/18 11:59 AM, Michael Lyle wrote: Too much to do with other projects. I've enjoyed working with everyone here, and hope to occasionally contribute on

Re: Change device block count from userspace?

Manuel, > It's not a kernel fault, the drive is broken. Interesting, OK. Just wanted to make sure we didn't have a regression. I tweaked the capacity reading code recently. > Still, is there a userspace option (sysfs attribute perhaps) to limit > disk capacity to a certain block count? I'm