From: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de>
To: Brassow Jonathan <jbrassow@redhat.com>
Cc: Eivind Sarto <eivindsarto@gmail.com>,
linux-raid@vger.kernel.org, majianpeng <majianpeng@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] Fixes for RAID1 resync
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 14:49:31 +1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140924144931.5f9f5fcd@notabene.brown> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <398DA7BB-7BED-49E0-8178-0CA4384E8A84@redhat.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1112 bytes --]
On Tue, 23 Sep 2014 23:25:12 -0500 Brassow Jonathan <jbrassow@redhat.com>
wrote:
>
> Sorry, still not there yet.
No?? I was *sure* I had it that time!
>
> I'm sorry I haven't had more time to spend on this. I'll try to get some help (perhaps from Heinz) and see if we can pitch-in instead of making you do all the work.
Could you include /proc/PID/stack for the two md kernel threads? They are
unlikely to differ from what we have seen before but as they are the
strongest pointer to where the problem is, I like to be able to see them :-)
Also I'd like to see the disassembly of raise_barrier() just to be certain
which of the two 'wait's it is waiting in.
One thing that might be useful is to change the various wait_event_lock_irq()
calls to wait_event_lock_irq_cmd() with an extra argument 'dotrace(conf)'
where dotrace() is a new function that first calls
schedule_timeout(60*HZ);
and then if that returns 0, prints out all fields that might be of interest.
Also get it to print which 'wait' it was called from (e.g. pass a string to
dotrace).
Thanks,
NeilBrown
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 828 bytes --]
prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-09-24 4:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-09-10 6:20 [PATCH 0/5] Fixes for RAID1 resync NeilBrown
2014-09-10 6:20 ` [PATCH 4/5] md/raid1: Don't use next_resync to determine how far resync has progressed NeilBrown
2014-09-10 6:20 ` [PATCH 2/5] md/raid1: clean up request counts properly in close_sync() NeilBrown
2014-09-10 6:20 ` [PATCH 1/5] md/raid1: be more cautious where we read-balance during resync NeilBrown
2014-09-10 6:20 ` [PATCH 3/5] md/raid1: make sure resync waits for conflicting writes to complete NeilBrown
2014-09-10 6:20 ` [PATCH 5/5] md/raid1: update next_resync under resync_lock NeilBrown
2014-09-11 3:45 ` [PATCH 0/5] Fixes for RAID1 resync Brassow Jonathan
2014-09-11 17:12 ` Brassow Jonathan
2014-09-15 3:30 ` NeilBrown
2014-09-16 16:31 ` Brassow Jonathan
2014-09-18 7:48 ` NeilBrown
2014-09-24 4:25 ` Brassow Jonathan
2014-09-24 4:49 ` NeilBrown [this message]
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=20140924144931.5f9f5fcd@notabene.brown \
--to=neilb@suse.de \
--cc=eivindsarto@gmail.com \
--cc=jbrassow@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-raid@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=majianpeng@gmail.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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).