On Fri, Jan 31 2014, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Jan 2014, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> >
> > Ok, I reread the code and figured it out - the analagous change also has to
> > be
> > made in __blk_segment_map_sg(). I'll mail out a patch for this tomorrow
> > after
> > I've stared at the code
On Thu, 16 Jan 2014, Kent Overstreet wrote:
>
> Ok, I reread the code and figured it out - the analagous change also has to be
> made in __blk_segment_map_sg(). I'll mail out a patch for this tomorrow after
> I've stared at the code more and had less beer.
I'd been hoping for a patch to try, but
On Thu, 16 Jan 2014, Kent Overstreet wrote:
Ok, I reread the code and figured it out - the analagous change also has to be
made in __blk_segment_map_sg(). I'll mail out a patch for this tomorrow after
I've stared at the code more and had less beer.
I'd been hoping for a patch to try, but now
On Fri, Jan 31 2014, Hugh Dickins wrote:
On Thu, 16 Jan 2014, Kent Overstreet wrote:
Ok, I reread the code and figured it out - the analagous change also has to
be
made in __blk_segment_map_sg(). I'll mail out a patch for this tomorrow
after
I've stared at the code more and had
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 12:21:10PM -0800, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> For me this just shifts the crash,
> from __blk_recalc_rq_segments() to blk_rq_map_sg():
>
> blk_rq_map_sg
> scsi_init_sgtable
> scsi_init_io
> scsi_setup_blk_pc_cmnd
> sd_prep_fn
> blk_peek_request
> scsi_request_fn
>
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 12:21:10PM -0800, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Jan 2014, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> >
> > Does the below patch look like what we want? I'm assuming that if
>
> You don't fill me with confidence ;)
>
> > multiple WRITE_SAME bios are merged, since they're all writing the
On Tue, 14 Jan 2014, Kent Overstreet wrote:
>
> Does the below patch look like what we want? I'm assuming that if
You don't fill me with confidence ;)
> multiple WRITE_SAME bios are merged, since they're all writing the same
> data we can consider the entire request to be a single segment.
>
>
On Tue, 14 Jan 2014, Kent Overstreet wrote:
Does the below patch look like what we want? I'm assuming that if
You don't fill me with confidence ;)
multiple WRITE_SAME bios are merged, since they're all writing the same
data we can consider the entire request to be a single segment.
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 12:21:10PM -0800, Hugh Dickins wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jan 2014, Kent Overstreet wrote:
Does the below patch look like what we want? I'm assuming that if
You don't fill me with confidence ;)
multiple WRITE_SAME bios are merged, since they're all writing the same
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 12:21:10PM -0800, Hugh Dickins wrote:
For me this just shifts the crash,
from __blk_recalc_rq_segments() to blk_rq_map_sg():
blk_rq_map_sg
scsi_init_sgtable
scsi_init_io
scsi_setup_blk_pc_cmnd
sd_prep_fn
blk_peek_request
scsi_request_fn
__blk_run_queue
> "Kent" == Kent Overstreet writes:
Kent> Side note, one of the things on my todo list/wishlist is make a
Kent> separate enum for bio type - bare flush, normal read/write, scsi
Kent> command, discard and write same. In particular with bi_size
Kent> meaning different things depending on the
Kent == Kent Overstreet k...@daterainc.com writes:
Kent Side note, one of the things on my todo list/wishlist is make a
Kent separate enum for bio type - bare flush, normal read/write, scsi
Kent command, discard and write same. In particular with bi_size
Kent meaning different things depending
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 03:17:32PM -0500, Martin K. Petersen wrote:
> > "Kent" == Kent Overstreet writes:
>
> >> IOW, DISCARD, WRITE SAME and the impending COPY requests do not have
> >> a 1:1 mapping between the block range worked on and the size of any
> >> bvecs attached. Your recent
> "Kent" == Kent Overstreet writes:
>> IOW, DISCARD, WRITE SAME and the impending COPY requests do not have
>> a 1:1 mapping between the block range worked on and the size of any
>> bvecs attached. Your recent changes must have changed the way we
>> handled that in the past.
Kent> Yeah -
Kent == Kent Overstreet k...@daterainc.com writes:
IOW, DISCARD, WRITE SAME and the impending COPY requests do not have
a 1:1 mapping between the block range worked on and the size of any
bvecs attached. Your recent changes must have changed the way we
handled that in the past.
Kent Yeah -
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 03:17:32PM -0500, Martin K. Petersen wrote:
Kent == Kent Overstreet k...@daterainc.com writes:
IOW, DISCARD, WRITE SAME and the impending COPY requests do not have
a 1:1 mapping between the block range worked on and the size of any
bvecs attached. Your recent
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 11:06:33PM -0500, Martin K. Petersen wrote:
> > "Kent" == Kent Overstreet writes:
>
> Kent,
>
> Kent> I think for discards we can deal with this easily enough -
> Kent> __blk_recalc_rq_segments() will have to special case them - but
> Kent> there's a similar (but
> "Kent" == Kent Overstreet writes:
Kent,
Kent> I think for discards we can deal with this easily enough -
Kent> __blk_recalc_rq_segments() will have to special case them - but
Kent> there's a similar (but worse) issue with WRITE_SAME, and looking
Kent> at the code it does attempt to merge
On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 07:52:40PM -0800, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> When I try to exercise heavy swapping with discard on mmotm 2014-01-09,
> I soon hit a NULL pointer dereference in __blk_recalc_rq_segments():
>
> __blk_recalc_rq_segments
> blk_recount_segments
> ll_back_merge_fn
>
On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 07:52:40PM -0800, Hugh Dickins wrote:
When I try to exercise heavy swapping with discard on mmotm 2014-01-09,
I soon hit a NULL pointer dereference in __blk_recalc_rq_segments():
__blk_recalc_rq_segments
blk_recount_segments
ll_back_merge_fn
bio_attempt_back_merge
Kent == Kent Overstreet k...@daterainc.com writes:
Kent,
Kent I think for discards we can deal with this easily enough -
Kent __blk_recalc_rq_segments() will have to special case them - but
Kent there's a similar (but worse) issue with WRITE_SAME, and looking
Kent at the code it does attempt to
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 11:06:33PM -0500, Martin K. Petersen wrote:
Kent == Kent Overstreet k...@daterainc.com writes:
Kent,
Kent I think for discards we can deal with this easily enough -
Kent __blk_recalc_rq_segments() will have to special case them - but
Kent there's a similar (but
When I try to exercise heavy swapping with discard on mmotm 2014-01-09,
I soon hit a NULL pointer dereference in __blk_recalc_rq_segments():
__blk_recalc_rq_segments
blk_recount_segments
ll_back_merge_fn
bio_attempt_back_merge
blk_queue_bio
generic_make_request
submit_bio
blkdev_issue_discard
When I try to exercise heavy swapping with discard on mmotm 2014-01-09,
I soon hit a NULL pointer dereference in __blk_recalc_rq_segments():
__blk_recalc_rq_segments
blk_recount_segments
ll_back_merge_fn
bio_attempt_back_merge
blk_queue_bio
generic_make_request
submit_bio
blkdev_issue_discard
24 matches
Mail list logo
