From: Mike Snitzer <snitzer@redhat.com>
To: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
Cc: Keith Busch <keith.busch@intel.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
device-mapper development <dm-devel@redhat.com>,
Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org>,
Jun'ichi Nomura <j-nomura@ce.jp.nec.com>
Subject: Re: blk-mq request allocation stalls [was: Re: [PATCH v3 0/8] dm: add request-based blk-mq support]
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2015 17:25:43 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150109222543.GA1190@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <54B04E94.3010403@kernel.dk>
On Fri, Jan 09 2015 at 4:56pm -0500,
Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk> wrote:
> On 01/09/2015 02:40 PM, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> >On Fri, Jan 09 2015 at 4:11pm -0500,
> >Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>Actually, try this one instead, it should be a bit more precise than
> >>the first.
> >>
> >
> >Thanks for the test patch.
> >
> >I'm still seeing failures that look wrong (last_tag=127 could be edge
> >condition not handled properly?):
> >
> >[ 14.254632] __bt_get: values before for loop: last_tag=127, index=3
> >[ 14.255841] __bt_get: values after for loop: last_tag=64, index=2
> >[ 14.257036]
> >[ 14.257036] bt_get: __bt_get() returned -1
> >[ 14.258051] queue_num=0, nr_tags=128, reserved_tags=0, bits_per_word=5
> >[ 14.259246] nr_free=128, nr_reserved=0
> >[ 14.259963] active_queues=0
> >
> >[ 213.115997] __bt_get: values before for loop: last_tag=127, index=3
> >[ 213.117115] __bt_get: values after for loop: last_tag=96, index=3
> >[ 213.118200]
> >[ 213.118200] bt_get: __bt_get() returned -1
> >[ 213.121593] queue_num=0, nr_tags=128, reserved_tags=0, bits_per_word=5
> >[ 213.123960] nr_free=128, nr_reserved=0
> >[ 213.125880] active_queues=0
> >
> >[ 239.158079] __bt_get: values before for loop: last_tag=8, index=0
> >[ 239.160363] __bt_get: values after for loop: last_tag=0, index=0
> >[ 239.162896]
> >[ 239.162896] bt_get: __bt_get() returned -1
> >[ 239.166284] queue_num=0, nr_tags=128, reserved_tags=0, bits_per_word=5
> >[ 239.168623] nr_free=127, nr_reserved=0
> >[ 239.170508] active_queues=0
>
> Thanks for testing, can you try this one?
Huh, at least now we're now seeing some nr_free=0... but the last 3
failures below look unnecessary still. E.g. the last_tag=127 case
[ 13.895265] __bt_get: values before for loop: last_tag=59, index=1
[ 13.895265] __bt_get: values after for loop: last_tag=32, index=1
[ 13.895266]
[ 13.895266] bt_get: __bt_get() returned -1
[ 13.895267] queue_num=0, nr_tags=128, reserved_tags=0, bits_per_word=5
[ 13.895267] nr_free=0, nr_reserved=0
[ 13.895268] active_queues=0
[ 13.895269] __bt_get: values before for loop: last_tag=0, index=0
[ 13.895270] __bt_get: values after for loop: last_tag=0, index=0
[ 13.895270]
[ 13.895270] bt_get: __bt_get() returned -1
[ 13.895271] queue_num=0, nr_tags=128, reserved_tags=0, bits_per_word=5
[ 13.895272] nr_free=0, nr_reserved=0
[ 13.895272] active_queues=0
[ 13.895324] __bt_get: values before for loop: last_tag=0, index=0
[ 13.895324] __bt_get: values after for loop: last_tag=0, index=0
[ 13.895325] bt_get: __bt_get() _still_ returned -1
[ 13.895325] queue_num=0, nr_tags=128, reserved_tags=0, bits_per_word=5
[ 13.895326] nr_free=0, nr_reserved=0
[ 13.895326] active_queues=0
[ 18.931425] __bt_get: values before for loop: last_tag=127, index=3
[ 18.933317] __bt_get: values after for loop: last_tag=0, index=0
[ 18.935140]
[ 18.935140] bt_get: __bt_get() returned -1
[ 18.936807] queue_num=0, nr_tags=128, reserved_tags=0, bits_per_word=5
[ 18.938772] nr_free=128, nr_reserved=0
[ 18.939927] active_queues=0
[ 489.119597] __bt_get: values before for loop: last_tag=95, index=2
[ 489.120621] __bt_get: values after for loop: last_tag=96, index=3
[ 489.121624]
[ 489.121624] bt_get: __bt_get() returned -1
[ 489.122532] queue_num=0, nr_tags=128, reserved_tags=0, bits_per_word=5
[ 489.123581] nr_free=128, nr_reserved=0
[ 489.124206] active_queues=0
[ 494.705758] __bt_get: values before for loop: last_tag=127, index=3
[ 494.707797] __bt_get: values after for loop: last_tag=0, index=0
[ 494.709696]
[ 494.709696] bt_get: __bt_get() returned -1
[ 494.712459] queue_num=0, nr_tags=128, reserved_tags=0, bits_per_word=5
[ 494.714403] nr_free=128, nr_reserved=0
[ 494.715955] active_queues=0
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-01-09 22:25 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 94+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-12-17 3:59 [PATCH v3 0/8] dm: add request-based blk-mq support Mike Snitzer
2014-12-17 3:59 ` [PATCH v3 1/8] block: require blk_rq_prep_clone() be given an initialized clone request Mike Snitzer
2014-12-17 3:59 ` [PATCH v3 2/8] block: initialize bio member of blk-mq request to NULL Mike Snitzer
2014-12-17 3:59 ` [PATCH v3 3/8] block: add blk-mq support to blk_insert_cloned_request() Mike Snitzer
2014-12-17 4:00 ` [PATCH v3 4/8] block: mark blk-mq devices as stackable Mike Snitzer
2014-12-17 4:00 ` [PATCH v3 5/8] dm: remove exports for request-based interfaces without external callers Mike Snitzer
2014-12-17 4:00 ` [PATCH v3 6/8] dm: split request structure out from dm_rq_target_io structure Mike Snitzer
2014-12-17 4:00 ` [PATCH v3 7/8] dm: submit stacked requests in irq enabled context Mike Snitzer
2014-12-17 4:00 ` [PATCH v3 8/8] dm: allocate requests from target when stacking on blk-mq devices Mike Snitzer
2014-12-17 22:35 ` Mike Snitzer
2014-12-17 21:42 ` [PATCH v3 0/8] dm: add request-based blk-mq support Keith Busch
2014-12-17 21:43 ` Jens Axboe
2014-12-17 23:06 ` Mike Snitzer
2014-12-18 1:41 ` Keith Busch
2014-12-18 4:58 ` Mike Snitzer
2014-12-19 14:32 ` Bart Van Assche
2014-12-19 15:38 ` Mike Snitzer
2014-12-19 17:14 ` Mike Snitzer
2014-12-22 15:28 ` Bart Van Assche
2014-12-22 18:49 ` Mike Snitzer
2014-12-23 16:24 ` Bart Van Assche
2014-12-23 17:13 ` Mike Snitzer
2014-12-23 21:42 ` Mike Snitzer
2014-12-24 13:02 ` Bart Van Assche
2014-12-24 18:21 ` Mike Snitzer
2014-12-24 18:55 ` Mike Snitzer
2014-12-24 19:26 ` Mike Snitzer
2015-01-02 17:53 ` Bart Van Assche
2015-01-05 21:35 ` Mike Snitzer
2015-01-06 8:59 ` Christoph Hellwig
2015-01-06 9:31 ` Bart Van Assche
2015-01-06 16:05 ` blk-mq request allocation stalls [was: Re: [PATCH v3 0/8] dm: add request-based blk-mq support] Mike Snitzer
2015-01-06 16:15 ` Jens Axboe
2015-01-07 10:33 ` Bart Van Assche
2015-01-07 15:32 ` Jens Axboe
2015-01-07 16:15 ` Mike Snitzer
2015-01-07 16:18 ` Jens Axboe
2015-01-07 16:22 ` Mike Snitzer
2015-01-07 16:24 ` Jens Axboe
2015-01-07 17:18 ` Mike Snitzer
2015-01-07 17:35 ` Jens Axboe
2015-01-07 20:09 ` Mike Snitzer
2015-01-07 20:40 ` Keith Busch
2015-01-09 19:49 ` Mike Snitzer
2015-01-09 21:07 ` Jens Axboe
2015-01-09 21:11 ` Jens Axboe
2015-01-09 21:40 ` Mike Snitzer
2015-01-09 21:56 ` Jens Axboe
2015-01-09 22:25 ` Mike Snitzer [this message]
2015-01-10 0:27 ` Jens Axboe
2015-01-10 1:48 ` Mike Snitzer
2015-01-10 1:59 ` Jens Axboe
2015-01-10 3:10 ` Mike Snitzer
2015-01-12 14:46 ` blk-mq request allocation stalls Bart Van Assche
2015-01-12 15:42 ` Jens Axboe
2015-01-12 16:12 ` Bart Van Assche
2015-01-12 16:34 ` Jens Axboe
2015-01-12 16:58 ` Mike Snitzer
2015-01-12 16:59 ` Jens Axboe
2015-01-12 17:04 ` Bart Van Assche
2015-01-12 17:09 ` Jens Axboe
2015-01-12 17:53 ` Keith Busch
2015-01-12 18:12 ` Jens Axboe
2015-01-12 18:22 ` Keith Busch
2015-01-12 18:35 ` Keith Busch
2015-01-12 19:11 ` Mike Snitzer
2015-01-12 20:21 ` Mike Snitzer
2015-01-13 12:29 ` Bart Van Assche
2015-01-13 14:17 ` Mike Snitzer
2015-01-13 14:28 ` dm + blk-mq soft lockup complaint Bart Van Assche
2015-01-13 16:20 ` Mike Snitzer
2015-01-14 9:16 ` Bart Van Assche
2015-01-14 18:59 ` Mike Snitzer
2015-01-15 8:11 ` Bart Van Assche
2015-01-15 15:43 ` Mike Snitzer
2015-01-15 15:55 ` Bart Van Assche
2015-01-13 14:59 ` blk-mq request allocation stalls Jens Axboe
2015-01-13 15:11 ` Keith Busch
2015-01-13 15:27 ` Keith Busch
2015-01-13 15:41 ` Mike Snitzer
2015-01-13 15:14 ` Mike Snitzer
2015-01-27 18:42 ` blk-mq DM changes for 3.20 [was: Re: blk-mq request allocation stalls] Mike Snitzer
2015-01-28 16:42 ` Jens Axboe
2015-01-28 17:44 ` Mike Snitzer
2015-01-28 17:49 ` Jens Axboe
2015-01-28 18:10 ` Mike Snitzer
2015-01-29 22:43 ` blk-mq DM changes for 3.20 [was: Re: blk-mq request allocation stalls]X Keith Busch
2015-01-29 23:09 ` Mike Snitzer
2015-01-29 23:44 ` Keith Busch
2015-01-30 0:32 ` Mike Snitzer
2015-01-12 19:05 ` blk-mq request allocation stalls Jens Axboe
2015-01-12 19:07 ` Mike Snitzer
2015-01-12 18:19 ` Mike Snitzer
2014-12-17 22:51 ` [PATCH v3 0/8] dm: add request-based blk-mq support Mike Snitzer
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20150109222543.GA1190@redhat.com \
--to=snitzer@redhat.com \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=bvanassche@acm.org \
--cc=dm-devel@redhat.com \
--cc=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=j-nomura@ce.jp.nec.com \
--cc=keith.busch@intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox