From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Laurence Oberman Subject: Re: [dm-devel] dm-mq and end_clone_request() Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2016 13:21:15 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <967089395.387512.1470763275007.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com> References: <20160801175948.GA6685@redhat.com> <551419047.135340.1470669997660.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com> <077d2708-3360-d8d7-fb3c-d3a73a1e03ee@sandisk.com> <1345038259.188657.1470696767844.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com> <1771573384.192110.1470701350622.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com> <2aaad6b7-bfa4-b965-53bf-4420fe01d3e5@sandisk.com> <1494059467.386778.1470762767417.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Bart Van Assche Cc: dm-devel@redhat.com, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, Mike Snitzer , Johannes Thumshirn List-Id: dm-devel.ids ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Bart Van Assche" > To: "Laurence Oberman" > Cc: dm-devel@redhat.com, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, "Mike Snitzer" , "Johannes Thumshirn" > > Sent: Tuesday, August 9, 2016 1:16:52 PM > Subject: Re: [dm-devel] dm-mq and end_clone_request() > > On 08/09/2016 10:12 AM, Laurence Oberman wrote: > > I was talking about this patch > > > > --- a/drivers/scsi/scsi_scan.c > > +++ b/drivers/scsi/scsi_scan.c > > @@ -1890,10 +1890,11 @@ void scsi_forget_host(struct Scsi_Host *shost) > > restart: > > spin_lock_irqsave(shost->host_lock, flags); > > list_for_each_entry(sdev, &shost->__devices, siblings) { > > - if (sdev->sdev_state == SDEV_DEL) > > + if (sdev->sdev_state == SDEV_DEL || scsi_device_get(sdev) > > < 0) > > continue; > > spin_unlock_irqrestore(shost->host_lock, flags); > > __scsi_remove_device(sdev); > > + scsi_device_put(sdev); > > goto restart; > > } > > spin_unlock_irqrestore(shost->host_lock, flags); > > Hello Laurence, > > Did you run your tests with that patch applied? If so, it would help if > you could rerun your tests without that patch. If the above patch makes > a difference it means that it can happen that __scsi_remove_device() > does not change the device state into SDEV_DEL. That's a bug and we need > to know whether or not __scsi_remove_device() behaves correctly. > > Thanks, > > Bart. > Yes Sir, I ran all yesterdays tests on your kernel with that patch applied. Of course it may well just be luck/coincidence that the host delete race is no longer happening so I agree we need to re-run the tests so I will revert and re-run. I will probably only get back to you tomorrow with the results. Thanks Laurence