Re: linux-next: Tree for Aug 1

Re: linux-next: Tree for Aug 1

[Ming Lei]

On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 12:58 PM, Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net> wrote:
> On 08/01/2018 05:03 PM, James Bottomley wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 2018-08-02 at 07:57 +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 7:47 AM, Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Aug 01, 2018 at 03:52:45PM -0700, James Bottomley wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 2018-08-01 at 15:48 -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 01, 2018 at 05:58:52PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Changes since 20180731:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The pci tree gained a conflict against the pci-current tree.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The net-next tree gained a conflict against the bpf tree.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The block tree lost its build failure.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The staging tree still had its build failure due to an
>>>>>>> interaction
>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>> the vfs tree for which I disabled CONFIG_EROFS_FS.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The kspp tree lost its build failure.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Non-merge commits (relative to Linus' tree): 10070
>>>>>>>   9137 files changed, 417605 insertions(+), 179996 deletions(-
>>>>>>> )
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -----------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>> ------
>>>>>>> -----------
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The widespread kernel hang issues are still seen. I managed
>>>>>> to bisect it after working around the transient build failures.
>>>>>> Bisect log is attached below. Unfortunately, it doesn't help
>>>>>> much.
>>>>>> The culprit is reported as:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2d542828c5e9 Merge remote-tracking branch 'scsi/for-next'
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The preceding merge,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 453f1d821165 Merge remote-tracking branch 'cgroup/for-next'
>>>>>>
>>>>>> checks out fine, as does the tip of scsi-next (commit
>>>>>> 103c7b7e0184,
>>>>>> "Merge branch 'misc' into for-next"). No idea how to proceed.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> This sounds like you may have a problem with this patch:
>>>>>
>>>>>      commit d5038a13eca72fb216c07eb717169092e92284f1
>>>>>       Author: Johannes Thumshirn <jthumshirn@suse.de>
>>>>>       Date:   Wed Jul 4 10:53:56 2018 +0200
>>>>>
>>>>>           scsi: core: switch to scsi-mq by default
>>>>>
>>>>> To verify, boot with the additional kernel parameter
>>>>>
>>>>> scsi_mod.use_blk_mq=0
>>>>>
>>>>> Which will reverse the effect of the above patch.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes, that fixes the problem.
>>>
>>>
>>> That may not the root cause, given this issue is only started to
>>> see from next-20180731, but d5038a13eca7 (scsi: core: switch to
>>> scsi-mq by default)
>>> has been in -next for quite a while.
>>>
>>> Seems something new causes this issue.
>>
>>
>> Read my other email about how to find this.
>>
>> https://marc.info/?l=linux-scsi&m=153316446223676
>>
>> Now that we've confirmed the issue, Gunter, could you attempt to bisect
>> it as that email describes?
>>
>
> So, I am more and more baffled.
>
> I ran another round of bisect, this time each test executing twice,
> once with "scsi_mod.use_blk_mq=1" and once with "scsi_mod.use_blk_mq=0",
> requiring both to pass. Bisect still points to the merge as culprit.
>
> Ok, one step further: Actually _revert_ commit d5038a13eca72 before running
> each test, meaning the default is use_blk_mq=0. Still run both tests.
> Bisect _still_ points to the merge of scsi-next as culprit.
>
> So, to me it looks like the problem is triggered by _something_ in
> scsi-next, combined with _something_ in -next prior to the merge,
> not specifically associated with use_blk_mq=[0|1] or d5038a13eca72,
> but to a combination of some patch in scsi-next and some other patch.

Today I am a bit busy, and not trace it much.

So far, I found the code hangs in scsi_test_unit_ready()
<-get_capabilities()<-sr_probe(), and scsi_queue_rq()/ata_scsi_queuecmd()
has queued the command successfully, but never completed.

Also tried to revert commits merged to ata tree on 30th, 31th,
but no difference.


Thanks,
Ming Lei

Re: linux-next: Tree for Aug 1

[Guenter Roeck]

On 08/02/2018 04:35 AM, Ming Lei wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 12:58 PM, Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net> wrote:
>> On 08/01/2018 05:03 PM, James Bottomley wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, 2018-08-02 at 07:57 +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 7:47 AM, Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Aug 01, 2018 at 03:52:45PM -0700, James Bottomley wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, 2018-08-01 at 15:48 -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 01, 2018 at 05:58:52PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Changes since 20180731:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The pci tree gained a conflict against the pci-current tree.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The net-next tree gained a conflict against the bpf tree.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The block tree lost its build failure.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The staging tree still had its build failure due to an
>>>>>>>> interaction
>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>> the vfs tree for which I disabled CONFIG_EROFS_FS.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The kspp tree lost its build failure.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Non-merge commits (relative to Linus' tree): 10070
>>>>>>>>    9137 files changed, 417605 insertions(+), 179996 deletions(-
>>>>>>>> )
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -----------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>> ------
>>>>>>>> -----------
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The widespread kernel hang issues are still seen. I managed
>>>>>>> to bisect it after working around the transient build failures.
>>>>>>> Bisect log is attached below. Unfortunately, it doesn't help
>>>>>>> much.
>>>>>>> The culprit is reported as:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2d542828c5e9 Merge remote-tracking branch 'scsi/for-next'
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The preceding merge,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 453f1d821165 Merge remote-tracking branch 'cgroup/for-next'
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> checks out fine, as does the tip of scsi-next (commit
>>>>>>> 103c7b7e0184,
>>>>>>> "Merge branch 'misc' into for-next"). No idea how to proceed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This sounds like you may have a problem with this patch:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>       commit d5038a13eca72fb216c07eb717169092e92284f1
>>>>>>        Author: Johannes Thumshirn <jthumshirn@suse.de>
>>>>>>        Date:   Wed Jul 4 10:53:56 2018 +0200
>>>>>>
>>>>>>            scsi: core: switch to scsi-mq by default
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To verify, boot with the additional kernel parameter
>>>>>>
>>>>>> scsi_mod.use_blk_mq=0
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which will reverse the effect of the above patch.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, that fixes the problem.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That may not the root cause, given this issue is only started to
>>>> see from next-20180731, but d5038a13eca7 (scsi: core: switch to
>>>> scsi-mq by default)
>>>> has been in -next for quite a while.
>>>>
>>>> Seems something new causes this issue.
>>>
>>>
>>> Read my other email about how to find this.
>>>
>>> https://marc.info/?l=linux-scsi&m=153316446223676
>>>
>>> Now that we've confirmed the issue, Gunter, could you attempt to bisect
>>> it as that email describes?
>>>
>>
>> So, I am more and more baffled.
>>
>> I ran another round of bisect, this time each test executing twice,
>> once with "scsi_mod.use_blk_mq=1" and once with "scsi_mod.use_blk_mq=0",
>> requiring both to pass. Bisect still points to the merge as culprit.
>>
>> Ok, one step further: Actually _revert_ commit d5038a13eca72 before running
>> each test, meaning the default is use_blk_mq=0. Still run both tests.
>> Bisect _still_ points to the merge of scsi-next as culprit.
>>
>> So, to me it looks like the problem is triggered by _something_ in
>> scsi-next, combined with _something_ in -next prior to the merge,
>> not specifically associated with use_blk_mq=[0|1] or d5038a13eca72,
>> but to a combination of some patch in scsi-next and some other patch.
> 
> Today I am a bit busy, and not trace it much.
> 
> So far, I found the code hangs in scsi_test_unit_ready()
> <-get_capabilities()<-sr_probe(), and scsi_queue_rq()/ata_scsi_queuecmd()
> has queued the command successfully, but never completed.
> 
> Also tried to revert commits merged to ata tree on 30th, 31th,
> but no difference.
> 

Looking at my commit logs, the problem started to happen after various DMA
changes were introduced. The boot tests fail on ppc (few), mips (all 32 bit,
most 64 bit), i386 (all), x86_64 (most). All other platform pass, even with
the same type of boot tests. Here is an example from alpha:

Building alpha:defconfig:initrd ... running .... passed
Building alpha:defconfig:sata:rootfs ... running ..... passed
Building alpha:defconfig:usb:rootfs ... running ..... passed
Building alpha:defconfig:usb-uas:rootfs ... running ...... passed
Building alpha:defconfig:scsi[AM53C974]:rootfs ... running ....... passed
Building alpha:defconfig:scsi[DC395]:rootfs ... running ....... passed
Building alpha:defconfig:scsi[MEGASAS]:rootfs ... running ...... passed
Building alpha:defconfig:scsi[MEGASAS2]:rootfs ... running ...... passed
Building alpha:defconfig:scsi[FUSION]:rootfs ... running ...... passed
Building alpha:defconfig:nvme:rootfs ... running ..... passed

arm64:

Building arm64:virt:defconfig:smp:initrd ... running ..... passed
Building arm64:virt:defconfig:smp:usb:rootfs ... running ..... passed
Building arm64:virt:defconfig:smp:usb-uas:rootfs ... running ..... passed
Building arm64:virt:defconfig:smp:virtio:rootfs ... running ..... passed
Building arm64:virt:defconfig:smp:nvme:rootfs ... running ..... passed
Building arm64:virt:defconfig:smp:mmc:rootfs ... running ..... passed
Building arm64:virt:defconfig:smp:scsi[DC395]:rootfs ... running ..... passed
Building arm64:virt:defconfig:smp:scsi[AM53C974]:rootfs ... running ..... passed
Building arm64:virt:defconfig:smp:scsi[MEGASAS]:rootfs ... running ..... passed
Building arm64:virt:defconfig:smp:scsi[MEGASAS2]:rootfs ... running ..... passed
Building arm64:virt:defconfig:smp:scsi[53C810]:rootfs ... running ...... passed
Building arm64:virt:defconfig:smp:scsi[53C895A]:rootfs ... running ...... passed
Building arm64:virt:defconfig:smp:scsi[FUSION]:rootfs ... running ...... passed
Skipping arm64:xlnx-zcu102:defconfig:smp:initrd:xilinx/zynqmp-ep108 ...
Skipping arm64:xlnx-zcu102:defconfig:smp:sd:rootfs:xilinx/zynqmp-ep108 ...
Skipping arm64:xlnx-zcu102:defconfig:smp:sata:rootfs:xilinx/zynqmp-ep108 ...
Building arm64:xlnx-zcu102:defconfig:smp:initrd:xilinx/zynqmp-zcu102-rev1.0 ... running ....... passed
Building arm64:xlnx-zcu102:defconfig:smp:sd1:rootfs:xilinx/zynqmp-zcu102-rev1.0 ... running ......... passed
Building arm64:xlnx-zcu102:defconfig:smp:sata:rootfs:xilinx/zynqmp-zcu102-rev1.0 ... running ...... passed
Building arm64:raspi3:defconfig:smp:initrd:broadcom/bcm2837-rpi-3-b ... running ..... passed
Building arm64:raspi3:defconfig:smp:sd:rootfs:broadcom/bcm2837-rpi-3-b ... running ........ passed
Building arm64:virt:defconfig:nosmp:initrd ... running ..... passed
Skipping arm64:xlnx-zcu102:defconfig:nosmp:initrd:xilinx/zynqmp-ep108 ...
Skipping arm64:xlnx-zcu102:defconfig:nosmp:sd:rootfs:xilinx/zynqmp-ep108 ...
Building arm64:xlnx-zcu102:defconfig:nosmp:initrd:xilinx/zynqmp-zcu102-rev1.0 ... running ......... passed
Building arm64:xlnx-zcu102:defconfig:nosmp:sd1:rootfs:xilinx/zynqmp-zcu102-rev1.0 ... running ......... passed

ppc:

Building powerpc:mac99:qemu_ppc_book3s_defconfig:nosmp:rootfs ... running ....... passed
Building powerpc:g3beige:qemu_ppc_book3s_defconfig:nosmp:rootfs ... running ...... passed
Building powerpc:mac99:qemu_ppc_book3s_defconfig:smp:rootfs ... running ....... passed
Building powerpc:virtex-ml507:44x/virtex5_defconfig:devtmpfs:initrd ... running .... passed
Building powerpc:mpc8544ds:mpc85xx_defconfig:initrd ... running .... passed
Building powerpc:mpc8544ds:mpc85xx_defconfig:scsi:rootfs ... running ..... passed
Building powerpc:mpc8544ds:mpc85xx_defconfig:sata:rootfs ... running .... passed
Building powerpc:mpc8544ds:mpc85xx_smp_defconfig:initrd ... running .... passed
Building powerpc:mpc8544ds:mpc85xx_smp_defconfig:scsi:rootfs ... running ..... passed
Building powerpc:mpc8544ds:mpc85xx_smp_defconfig:sata:rootfs ... running .... passed
Building powerpc:bamboo:44x/bamboo_defconfig:devtmpfs:initrd ... running .... passed
Building powerpc:bamboo:44x/bamboo_defconfig:devtmpfs:scsi[AM53C974]:rootfs ... running ..... passed
Building powerpc:bamboo:44x/bamboo_defconfig:devtmpfs:smp:initrd ... running .... passed
Building powerpc:bamboo:44x/bamboo_defconfig:devtmpfs:smp:scsi[AM53C974]:rootfs ... running ..... passed
Building powerpc:sam460ex:44x/canyonlands_defconfig:devtmpfs:initrd ... running ..... passed
Building powerpc:sam460ex:44x/canyonlands_defconfig:devtmpfs:usbdisk:rootfs ... running ...... passed
Building powerpc:mac99:pmac32_defconfig:devtmpfs:zilog:initrd ... running .................................. failed (timeout)
Building powerpc:mac99:pmac32_defconfig:devtmpfs:zilog:rootfs ... running .................................. failed (timeout)

Maybe that is a coincidence, but it is at least suspicious.

Guenter

Re: linux-next: Tree for Aug 1

[Ming Lei]

On Thu, Aug 02, 2018 at 06:05:16AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On 08/02/2018 04:35 AM, Ming Lei wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 12:58 PM, Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net> wrote:
> > > On 08/01/2018 05:03 PM, James Bottomley wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > On Thu, 2018-08-02 at 07:57 +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 7:47 AM, Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > On Wed, Aug 01, 2018 at 03:52:45PM -0700, James Bottomley wrote:
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > On Wed, 2018-08-01 at 15:48 -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 01, 2018 at 05:58:52PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > Changes since 20180731:
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > The pci tree gained a conflict against the pci-current tree.
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > The net-next tree gained a conflict against the bpf tree.
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > The block tree lost its build failure.
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > The staging tree still had its build failure due to an
> > > > > > > > > interaction
> > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > the vfs tree for which I disabled CONFIG_EROFS_FS.
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > The kspp tree lost its build failure.
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > Non-merge commits (relative to Linus' tree): 10070
> > > > > > > > >    9137 files changed, 417605 insertions(+), 179996 deletions(-
> > > > > > > > > )
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > -----------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > > > > ------
> > > > > > > > > -----------
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > The widespread kernel hang issues are still seen. I managed
> > > > > > > > to bisect it after working around the transient build failures.
> > > > > > > > Bisect log is attached below. Unfortunately, it doesn't help
> > > > > > > > much.
> > > > > > > > The culprit is reported as:
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 2d542828c5e9 Merge remote-tracking branch 'scsi/for-next'
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > The preceding merge,
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 453f1d821165 Merge remote-tracking branch 'cgroup/for-next'
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > checks out fine, as does the tip of scsi-next (commit
> > > > > > > > 103c7b7e0184,
> > > > > > > > "Merge branch 'misc' into for-next"). No idea how to proceed.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > This sounds like you may have a problem with this patch:
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > >       commit d5038a13eca72fb216c07eb717169092e92284f1
> > > > > > >        Author: Johannes Thumshirn <jthumshirn@suse.de>
> > > > > > >        Date:   Wed Jul 4 10:53:56 2018 +0200
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > >            scsi: core: switch to scsi-mq by default
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > To verify, boot with the additional kernel parameter
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > scsi_mod.use_blk_mq=0
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Which will reverse the effect of the above patch.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Yes, that fixes the problem.
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > That may not the root cause, given this issue is only started to
> > > > > see from next-20180731, but d5038a13eca7 (scsi: core: switch to
> > > > > scsi-mq by default)
> > > > > has been in -next for quite a while.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Seems something new causes this issue.
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Read my other email about how to find this.
> > > > 
> > > > https://marc.info/?l=linux-scsi&m=153316446223676
> > > > 
> > > > Now that we've confirmed the issue, Gunter, could you attempt to bisect
> > > > it as that email describes?
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > So, I am more and more baffled.
> > > 
> > > I ran another round of bisect, this time each test executing twice,
> > > once with "scsi_mod.use_blk_mq=1" and once with "scsi_mod.use_blk_mq=0",
> > > requiring both to pass. Bisect still points to the merge as culprit.
> > > 
> > > Ok, one step further: Actually _revert_ commit d5038a13eca72 before running
> > > each test, meaning the default is use_blk_mq=0. Still run both tests.
> > > Bisect _still_ points to the merge of scsi-next as culprit.
> > > 
> > > So, to me it looks like the problem is triggered by _something_ in
> > > scsi-next, combined with _something_ in -next prior to the merge,
> > > not specifically associated with use_blk_mq=[0|1] or d5038a13eca72,
> > > but to a combination of some patch in scsi-next and some other patch.
> > 
> > Today I am a bit busy, and not trace it much.
> > 
> > So far, I found the code hangs in scsi_test_unit_ready()
> > <-get_capabilities()<-sr_probe(), and scsi_queue_rq()/ata_scsi_queuecmd()
> > has queued the command successfully, but never completed.
> > 
> > Also tried to revert commits merged to ata tree on 30th, 31th,
> > but no difference.
> > 
> 
> Looking at my commit logs, the problem started to happen after various DMA
> changes were introduced. The boot tests fail on ppc (few), mips (all 32 bit,
> most 64 bit), i386 (all), x86_64 (most). All other platform pass, even with
> the same type of boot tests. Here is an example from alpha:
> 
> Building alpha:defconfig:initrd ... running .... passed
> Building alpha:defconfig:sata:rootfs ... running ..... passed
> Building alpha:defconfig:usb:rootfs ... running ..... passed
> Building alpha:defconfig:usb-uas:rootfs ... running ...... passed
> Building alpha:defconfig:scsi[AM53C974]:rootfs ... running ....... passed
> Building alpha:defconfig:scsi[DC395]:rootfs ... running ....... passed
> Building alpha:defconfig:scsi[MEGASAS]:rootfs ... running ...... passed
> Building alpha:defconfig:scsi[MEGASAS2]:rootfs ... running ...... passed
> Building alpha:defconfig:scsi[FUSION]:rootfs ... running ...... passed
> Building alpha:defconfig:nvme:rootfs ... running ..... passed
> 
> arm64:
> 
> Building arm64:virt:defconfig:smp:initrd ... running ..... passed
> Building arm64:virt:defconfig:smp:usb:rootfs ... running ..... passed
> Building arm64:virt:defconfig:smp:usb-uas:rootfs ... running ..... passed
> Building arm64:virt:defconfig:smp:virtio:rootfs ... running ..... passed
> Building arm64:virt:defconfig:smp:nvme:rootfs ... running ..... passed
> Building arm64:virt:defconfig:smp:mmc:rootfs ... running ..... passed
> Building arm64:virt:defconfig:smp:scsi[DC395]:rootfs ... running ..... passed
> Building arm64:virt:defconfig:smp:scsi[AM53C974]:rootfs ... running ..... passed
> Building arm64:virt:defconfig:smp:scsi[MEGASAS]:rootfs ... running ..... passed
> Building arm64:virt:defconfig:smp:scsi[MEGASAS2]:rootfs ... running ..... passed
> Building arm64:virt:defconfig:smp:scsi[53C810]:rootfs ... running ...... passed
> Building arm64:virt:defconfig:smp:scsi[53C895A]:rootfs ... running ...... passed
> Building arm64:virt:defconfig:smp:scsi[FUSION]:rootfs ... running ...... passed
> Skipping arm64:xlnx-zcu102:defconfig:smp:initrd:xilinx/zynqmp-ep108 ...
> Skipping arm64:xlnx-zcu102:defconfig:smp:sd:rootfs:xilinx/zynqmp-ep108 ...
> Skipping arm64:xlnx-zcu102:defconfig:smp:sata:rootfs:xilinx/zynqmp-ep108 ...
> Building arm64:xlnx-zcu102:defconfig:smp:initrd:xilinx/zynqmp-zcu102-rev1.0 ... running ....... passed
> Building arm64:xlnx-zcu102:defconfig:smp:sd1:rootfs:xilinx/zynqmp-zcu102-rev1.0 ... running ......... passed
> Building arm64:xlnx-zcu102:defconfig:smp:sata:rootfs:xilinx/zynqmp-zcu102-rev1.0 ... running ...... passed
> Building arm64:raspi3:defconfig:smp:initrd:broadcom/bcm2837-rpi-3-b ... running ..... passed
> Building arm64:raspi3:defconfig:smp:sd:rootfs:broadcom/bcm2837-rpi-3-b ... running ........ passed
> Building arm64:virt:defconfig:nosmp:initrd ... running ..... passed
> Skipping arm64:xlnx-zcu102:defconfig:nosmp:initrd:xilinx/zynqmp-ep108 ...
> Skipping arm64:xlnx-zcu102:defconfig:nosmp:sd:rootfs:xilinx/zynqmp-ep108 ...
> Building arm64:xlnx-zcu102:defconfig:nosmp:initrd:xilinx/zynqmp-zcu102-rev1.0 ... running ......... passed
> Building arm64:xlnx-zcu102:defconfig:nosmp:sd1:rootfs:xilinx/zynqmp-zcu102-rev1.0 ... running ......... passed
> 
> ppc:
> 
> Building powerpc:mac99:qemu_ppc_book3s_defconfig:nosmp:rootfs ... running ....... passed
> Building powerpc:g3beige:qemu_ppc_book3s_defconfig:nosmp:rootfs ... running ...... passed
> Building powerpc:mac99:qemu_ppc_book3s_defconfig:smp:rootfs ... running ....... passed
> Building powerpc:virtex-ml507:44x/virtex5_defconfig:devtmpfs:initrd ... running .... passed
> Building powerpc:mpc8544ds:mpc85xx_defconfig:initrd ... running .... passed
> Building powerpc:mpc8544ds:mpc85xx_defconfig:scsi:rootfs ... running ..... passed
> Building powerpc:mpc8544ds:mpc85xx_defconfig:sata:rootfs ... running .... passed
> Building powerpc:mpc8544ds:mpc85xx_smp_defconfig:initrd ... running .... passed
> Building powerpc:mpc8544ds:mpc85xx_smp_defconfig:scsi:rootfs ... running ..... passed
> Building powerpc:mpc8544ds:mpc85xx_smp_defconfig:sata:rootfs ... running .... passed
> Building powerpc:bamboo:44x/bamboo_defconfig:devtmpfs:initrd ... running .... passed
> Building powerpc:bamboo:44x/bamboo_defconfig:devtmpfs:scsi[AM53C974]:rootfs ... running ..... passed
> Building powerpc:bamboo:44x/bamboo_defconfig:devtmpfs:smp:initrd ... running .... passed
> Building powerpc:bamboo:44x/bamboo_defconfig:devtmpfs:smp:scsi[AM53C974]:rootfs ... running ..... passed
> Building powerpc:sam460ex:44x/canyonlands_defconfig:devtmpfs:initrd ... running ..... passed
> Building powerpc:sam460ex:44x/canyonlands_defconfig:devtmpfs:usbdisk:rootfs ... running ...... passed
> Building powerpc:mac99:pmac32_defconfig:devtmpfs:zilog:initrd ... running .................................. failed (timeout)
> Building powerpc:mac99:pmac32_defconfig:devtmpfs:zilog:rootfs ... running .................................. failed (timeout)
> 
> Maybe that is a coincidence, but it is at least suspicious.

This issue can be fixed by reverting d250bf4e776ff09d5 ("blk-mq: only iterate over
inflight requests in blk_mq_tagset_busy_iter").

This patch looks wrong, because 'blk_mq_rq_state(rq) == MQ_RQ_IN_FLIGHT'
isn't completely same with 'blk_mq_request_started(req)'.

Thanks,
Ming

Re: linux-next: Tree for Aug 1

[Bart Van Assche]

On Fri, 2018-08-03 at 00:27 +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> This issue can be fixed by reverting d250bf4e776ff09d5 ("blk-mq: only iterate over
> inflight requests in blk_mq_tagset_busy_iter").
> 
> This patch looks wrong, because 'blk_mq_rq_state(rq) == MQ_RQ_IN_FLIGHT'
> isn't completely same with 'blk_mq_request_started(req)'.

Please test the following change instead of reverting the commit mentioned
above:

diff --git a/block/blk-mq-tag.c b/block/blk-mq-tag.c
index 09b2ee6694fb..25a0583d8b4c 100644
--- a/block/blk-mq-tag.c
+++ b/block/blk-mq-tag.c
@@ -271,7 +271,7 @@ static bool bt_tags_iter(struct sbitmap *bitmap, unsigned int bitnr, void *data)
 	 * test and set the bit before assining ->rqs[].
 	 */
 	rq = tags->rqs[bitnr];
-	if (rq && blk_mq_rq_state(rq) == MQ_RQ_IN_FLIGHT)
+	if (rq && blk_mq_rq_state(rq) != MQ_RQ_IDLE)
 		iter_data->fn(rq, iter_data->data, reserved);
 
 	return true;

Thanks,

Bart.

Re: linux-next: Tree for Aug 1

[Ming Lei]

On Fri, Aug 3, 2018 at 12:40 AM, Bart Van Assche <Bart.VanAssche@wdc.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 2018-08-03 at 00:27 +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
>> This issue can be fixed by reverting d250bf4e776ff09d5 ("blk-mq: only iterate over
>> inflight requests in blk_mq_tagset_busy_iter").
>>
>> This patch looks wrong, because 'blk_mq_rq_state(rq) == MQ_RQ_IN_FLIGHT'
>> isn't completely same with 'blk_mq_request_started(req)'.
>
> Please test the following change instead of reverting the commit mentioned
> above:
>
> diff --git a/block/blk-mq-tag.c b/block/blk-mq-tag.c
> index 09b2ee6694fb..25a0583d8b4c 100644
> --- a/block/blk-mq-tag.c
> +++ b/block/blk-mq-tag.c
> @@ -271,7 +271,7 @@ static bool bt_tags_iter(struct sbitmap *bitmap, unsigned int bitnr, void *data)
>          * test and set the bit before assining ->rqs[].
>          */
>         rq = tags->rqs[bitnr];
> -       if (rq && blk_mq_rq_state(rq) == MQ_RQ_IN_FLIGHT)
> +       if (rq && blk_mq_rq_state(rq) != MQ_RQ_IDLE)
>                 iter_data->fn(rq, iter_data->data, reserved);
>
>         return true;
>

I just sent out a similar patch on list, but use blk_mq_request_started()
instead.

https://marc.info/?l=linux-scsi&m=153322823307754&w=2

Thanks,
Ming Lei

Re: linux-next: Tree for Aug 1

[Bart Van Assche]

On Fri, 2018-08-03 at 00:50 +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 3, 2018 at 12:40 AM, Bart Van Assche <Bart.VanAssche@wdc.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, 2018-08-03 at 00:27 +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> > > This issue can be fixed by reverting d250bf4e776ff09d5 ("blk-mq: only iterate over
> > > inflight requests in blk_mq_tagset_busy_iter").
> > > 
> > > This patch looks wrong, because 'blk_mq_rq_state(rq) == MQ_RQ_IN_FLIGHT'
> > > isn't completely same with 'blk_mq_request_started(req)'.
> > 
> > Please test the following change instead of reverting the commit mentioned
> > above:
> > 
> > diff --git a/block/blk-mq-tag.c b/block/blk-mq-tag.c
> > index 09b2ee6694fb..25a0583d8b4c 100644
> > --- a/block/blk-mq-tag.c
> > +++ b/block/blk-mq-tag.c
> > @@ -271,7 +271,7 @@ static bool bt_tags_iter(struct sbitmap *bitmap, unsigned int bitnr, void *data)
> >          * test and set the bit before assining ->rqs[].
> >          */
> >         rq = tags->rqs[bitnr];
> > -       if (rq && blk_mq_rq_state(rq) == MQ_RQ_IN_FLIGHT)
> > +       if (rq && blk_mq_rq_state(rq) != MQ_RQ_IDLE)
> >                 iter_data->fn(rq, iter_data->data, reserved);
> > 
> >         return true;
> > 
> 
> I just sent out a similar patch on list, but use blk_mq_request_started()
> instead.
> 
> https://marc.info/?l=linux-scsi&m=153322823307754&w=2

Hello Ming,

Since both patches are functionally equivalent, I'm fine with either version.

Bart.