On 11/25/2015 11:34 AM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On 11/23/2015 05:14 PM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
>> On 11/22/2015 07:31 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>>> On Sun, Nov 22, 2015 at 05:26:28PM +0200, Sagi Grimberg wrote:
> No. register_always=Y is already broken in 4.3, but
> register_always=N
On 11/23/2015 05:14 PM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
On 11/22/2015 07:31 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Sun, Nov 22, 2015 at 05:26:28PM +0200, Sagi Grimberg wrote:
No. register_always=Y is already broken in 4.3, but
register_always=N is
now also broken in 4.4.
OK, I'm confused so please let me
On 11/22/2015 07:31 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Sun, Nov 22, 2015 at 05:26:28PM +0200, Sagi Grimberg wrote:
No. register_always=Y is already broken in 4.3, but register_always=N is
now also broken in 4.4.
OK, I'm confused so please let me understand slowly :)
Your patch "ib_srp:
On Sun, Nov 22, 2015 at 04:55:49PM +0200, Sagi Grimberg wrote:
> >>Also note that 4.4-rc prefer_fr=y register_always=n
> >>!register_always still blows up badly with XFS and ext4 due to
> >>data integrity errors.
>
> So the register_always=N makes bad things happen? if we register
> all the
On Sun, Nov 22, 2015 at 05:26:28PM +0200, Sagi Grimberg wrote:
> >No. register_always=Y is already broken in 4.3, but register_always=N is
> >now also broken in 4.4.
>
> OK, I'm confused so please let me understand slowly :)
>
> Your patch "ib_srp: initialize dma_length in srp_map_idb" solves
>
On Sun, Nov 22, 2015 at 05:53:43AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> To me this sounds like another argument to just allocate one FR
> per request and don't allow non-contiguous SGLs.
>
> Also note that 4.4-rc prefer_fr=y register_always=n
> !register_always still blows up badly with XFS and
On 22/11/2015 17:10, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Sun, Nov 22, 2015 at 04:55:49PM +0200, Sagi Grimberg wrote:
Also note that 4.4-rc prefer_fr=y register_always=n
!register_always still blows up badly with XFS and ext4 due to
data integrity errors.
So the register_always=N makes bad things
On 22/11/2015 16:32, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Sun, Nov 22, 2015 at 05:53:43AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
To me this sounds like another argument to just allocate one FR
per request and don't allow non-contiguous SGLs.
Also note that 4.4-rc prefer_fr=y register_always=n
On Sun, Nov 15, 2015 at 11:48:08AM -0800, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> Did I understand correctly that page-aligned I/O works fine but I/O that is
> not aligned on a page boundary not ? Have you already had the time to verify
> whether the "IB/srp: Convert to new registration API" patch is the patch
>
On 11/15/15 10:06, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
FYI, I sent a patch for the zero S/G length issue. With this xfstests
does fine for ext4 and btrfs. With XFS I still run into corruption
warnings for the slab use after free poison pattern. I suspect that
issue might be related to uniqueue XFS I/O
FYI, I sent a patch for the zero S/G length issue. With this xfstests
does fine for ext4 and btrfs. With XFS I still run into corruption
warnings for the slab use after free poison pattern. I suspect that
issue might be related to uniqueue XFS I/O patterns. One thing that
might be related is
On 11/12/2015 09:59 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
[ 108.998574] WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 1258 at kernel/sched/core.c:7389
__might_sleep+0xa7/0xb0()
[ 108.998580] do not call blocking ops when !TASK_RUNNING; state=1 set
Although this is most likely unrelated to the issue reported at the
start of
On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 05:12:14PM -0800, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On 11/12/2015 09:59 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> >[ 108.998574] WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 1258 at kernel/sched/core.c:7389
> >__might_sleep+0xa7/0xb0()
> >[ 108.998580] do not call blocking ops when !TASK_RUNNING; state=1 set
>
>
On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 01:07:44PM -0800, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On 11/10/2015 09:15 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> >scsi host3: ib_srp: failed receive status WR flushed (5) for iu
> >880313f4ca40
>
> Can you also post the logs from the target system from around the time this
> message was
On 11/11/2015 18:18, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 08:03:46AM -0800, Bart Van Assche wrote:
Hello Christoph,
The SRP initiator from kernel 4.3 is working fine on my test setup. I will
start a test with Linus' tree and with the following SRP kernel module
parameters:
# cat
On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 07:35:47AM -0800, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On 11/10/2015 09:15 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> >This is a simply xfstests run using XFS on a remote LIO ramdisk.
>
> Hello Christoph,
>
> Which version of the kernel and LIO were installed at the target side ?
I've tried a
On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 08:03:46AM -0800, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> Hello Christoph,
>
> The SRP initiator from kernel 4.3 is working fine on my test setup. I will
> start a test with Linus' tree and with the following SRP kernel module
> parameters:
>
> # cat /etc/modprobe.d/ib_srp.conf
>
On 11/10/2015 09:15 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
This is a simply xfstests run using XFS on a remote LIO ramdisk.
Hello Christoph,
Which version of the kernel and LIO were installed at the target side ?
Bart.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in
the
On 11/11/2015 07:46 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 07:35:47AM -0800, Bart Van Assche wrote:
On 11/10/2015 09:15 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
This is a simply xfstests run using XFS on a remote LIO ramdisk.
Hello Christoph,
Which version of the kernel and LIO were
On 11/10/2015 09:15 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
scsi host3: ib_srp: failed receive status WR flushed (5) for iu 880313f4ca40
Can you also post the logs from the target system from around the time
this message was logged on the initiator system ? Usually this message
means that the
I've just tried forward porting some work affecting SRP from a 4.1-ish
base, and started to run into error ASAP on current Linus' HEAD and also
4.3. In current HEAD memory registrations on the client seem to fail,
probably due to the MR rework, but even on 4.3 I run into crazy
corruption reports
21 matches
Mail list logo
