On 2014-09-03 19:34, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 2014-09-03 18:23, Robert Elliott wrote:
>> With some combinations of iodepth, iodepth_batch, iodepth_batch_complete,
>> and io_depth_low, do_io hangs after reaping the first set of completions
>> since io_u_queued_complete is called requesting more completions than
>> td->cur_depth.
>>
>> Example printing min_evts and td->cur_depth in the do/while loop:
>> waiting on min=96 cd=627
>> waiting on min=96 cd=531
>> waiting on min=96 cd=435
>> waiting on min=96 cd=339
>> waiting on min=96 cd=243
>> waiting on min=96 cd=147
>> waiting on min=96 cd=51
>> Jobs: 12 (f=12): [r(12)] [43.8% done] [0KB/0KB/0KB /s] [0/0/0 iops]
>> [eta 00m:09s]
>> ...
>> Jobs: 12 (f=12): [r(12)] [0.0% done] [0KB/0KB/0KB /s] [0/0/0 iops]
>> [eta 2863d:18h:28m:38s]
>> <fio never exits>
>>
>> Fix this by adjusting min_evts to the current_depth if that is smaller.
>>
>> Tested with a jobfile including:
>> iodepth=1011
>> iodepth_batch=96
>> iodepth_batch_complete=96
>> iodepth_low=1
>> runtime=15
>> time_based
>>
>> Made the same change to do_verify, but not tested there.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Robert Elliott <elliott@hp.com>
>> ---
>>   backend.c |    4 ++++
>>   1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/backend.c b/backend.c
>> index 7cb0a39..ce97f6d 100644
>> --- a/backend.c
>> +++ b/backend.c
>> @@ -606,6 +606,8 @@ reap:
>>                    * and do the verification on them through
>>                    * the callback handler
>>                    */
>> +                if (min_events < td->cur_depth)
>> +                    min_events = td->cur_depth;
>
> Did you reverse these? From the description and debug output, seems it
> should be:
>
>      if (min_events > td->cur_depth)
>          min_events = td->cur_depth;
>
> and we should probably put this logic in io_u_queued_complete(), I think
> that would be a safer alternative instead of near the callers.

Ala the attached.

-- 
Jens Axboe