On Mon, 2018-06-11 at 14:59 -0700, Ted Cabeen wrote:
> On 06/11/2018 02:40 PM, James Bottomley wrote:
> > On Mon, 2018-06-11 at 12:20 -0400, Douglas Gilbert wrote:
> > > I have also seen Aborted Command sense when doing heavy testing
> > > on one or more SAS disks behind a SAS expander. I put it
On 11/06/2018 15:40, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
This is the repost of the two patches I posted in earlier this month:
- [PATCH 1/2] libsas: remove irq save in sas_ata_qc_issue()
Received feedback but nothing really changed. I explained that this is
not about "local_irqsave() +
This is the repost of the two patches I posted in earlier this month:
- [PATCH 1/2] libsas: remove irq save in sas_ata_qc_issue()
Received feedback but nothing really changed. I explained that this is
not about "local_irqsave() + spin_lock()" *but* "local_irq_save() +
spin_unlock()". This
Since commit 312d3e56119a ("[SCSI] libsas: remove ata_port.lock
management duties from lldds") the sas_ata_qc_issue() function unlocks
the ata_port.lock and disables interrupts before doing so.
That lock is always taken with disabled interrupts so at this point, the
interrupts are already
In commit d2ba5675d899 ("[SCSI] qla2xxx: Disable local-interrupts while
polling for RISC status.") added a local_irq_disable() before invoking
the ->intr_handler callback. The function, which was used in this
callback, did not disable interrupts while acquiring the spin_lock so a
deadlock was
Dear all,
First off: sorry for cross-posting. I don't know if this is a RAID issue or a
SCSI issue, so I'll just ask y'all.
For a RAID6 capacity upgrade (higher capacity drives), we bought some 10TB
disks:
==
Apr 17 11:16:05 kuiper kernel: [12795386.862031] scsi 6:0:36:0:
Looks good,
Reviewed-by: Johannes Thumshirn
--
Johannes Thumshirn Storage
jthumsh...@suse.de+49 911 74053 689
SUSE LINUX GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg
GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton
HRB 21284 (AG
Looks good,
Reviewed-by: Johannes Thumshirn
--
Johannes Thumshirn Storage
jthumsh...@suse.de+49 911 74053 689
SUSE LINUX GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg
GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton
HRB 21284 (AG
On Mon, 2018-06-11 at 16:24 +0200, Sebastian Hegler wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> First off: sorry for cross-posting. I don't know if this is a RAID
> issue or a SCSI issue, so I'll just ask y'all.
>
>
> For a RAID6 capacity upgrade (higher capacity drives), we bought some
> 10TB disks:
>
On 2018-06-11 11:06 AM, James Bottomley wrote:
On Mon, 2018-06-11 at 16:24 +0200, Sebastian Hegler wrote:
Dear all,
First off: sorry for cross-posting. I don't know if this is a RAID
issue or a SCSI issue, so I'll just ask y'all.
For a RAID6 capacity upgrade (higher capacity drives), we
On Mon, 2018-06-11 at 11:18 -0400, Douglas Gilbert wrote:
> On 2018-06-11 11:06 AM, James Bottomley wrote:
> > On Mon, 2018-06-11 at 16:24 +0200, Sebastian Hegler wrote:
> > > Dear all,
> > >
> > > First off: sorry for cross-posting. I don't know if this is a
> > > RAID
> > > issue or a SCSI
I'm seeing a similar behavior on my system, but across multiple devices
on a SAS drive array (front bays on a Supermicro-based system with
onboard mpt3sas card). The Sense Key here doesn't show a medium error,
and the multiple-drive behavior makes me think it's more likely either a
controller
On 2018-06-11 12:07 PM, Ted Cabeen wrote:
I'm seeing a similar behavior on my system, but across multiple devices on a SAS
drive array (front bays on a Supermicro-based system with onboard mpt3sas card).
The Sense Key here doesn't show a medium error, and the multiple-drive behavior
makes me
On 2018-06-11 18:12:55 [+0100], John Garry wrote:
> On 11/06/2018 15:40, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> > This is the repost of the two patches I posted in earlier this month:
> >
> > - [PATCH 1/2] libsas: remove irq save in sas_ata_qc_issue()
> > Received feedback but nothing really
On 11/06/18 16:06, James Bottomley wrote:
> Well, this is the problem: a 4k logical (presumably 4k physical) drive
> cannot be addressed in block sectors that are not divisible by 8. This
> type of drive configuration is very unusual (although it was something
> we tested years ago before the
That makes some sense to me. Sathya, Chaitra, and Suganath, is that a
change we should consider making to the MPT Fusion Drivers?
--Ted
On 06/11/2018 09:20 AM, Douglas Gilbert wrote:
I have also seen Aborted Command sense when doing heavy testing on one or
more SAS disks behind a SAS
On Mon, 2018-06-11 at 12:20 -0400, Douglas Gilbert wrote:
> On 2018-06-11 12:07 PM, Ted Cabeen wrote:
> > I'm seeing a similar behavior on my system, but across multiple
> > devices on a SAS drive array (front bays on a Supermicro-based
> > system with onboard mpt3sas card).
> > The Sense Key
[readd linux-scsi]
On Mon, 2018-06-11 at 14:43 -0700, Ted Cabeen wrote:
> On 06/11/2018 02:40 PM, James Bottomley wrote:
> > > I have also seen Aborted Command sense when doing heavy testing
> > > on one or more SAS disks behind a SAS expander. I put it down to
> > > a temporary lack of paths
On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 1:00 PM, Anthony Youngman
wrote:
> On 11/06/18 16:06, James Bottomley wrote:
>> Well, this is the problem: a 4k logical (presumably 4k physical) drive
>> cannot be addressed in block sectors that are not divisible by 8. This
>> type of drive configuration is very unusual
On 06/11/2018 02:40 PM, James Bottomley wrote:
On Mon, 2018-06-11 at 12:20 -0400, Douglas Gilbert wrote:
I have also seen Aborted Command sense when doing heavy testing on
one or more SAS disks behind a SAS expander. I put it down to a
temporary lack of paths available (on the link between the
On Mon, 2018-06-11 at 17:56 -0400, Bryan Gurney wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 1:00 PM, Anthony Youngman
> wrote:
> > On 11/06/18 16:06, James Bottomley wrote:
> > > Well, this is the problem: a 4k logical (presumably 4k physical)
> > > drive cannot be addressed in block sectors that are not
21 matches
Mail list logo
