From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2019 10:14:30 +0200 From: Cornelia Huck Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v4 1/6] vfio-ccw: make it safe to access channel programs Message-ID: <20190412101430.05c80db5.cohuck@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <571b9f8c-cfb0-704e-ded4-8661a8136876@linux.ibm.com> References: <20190301093902.27799-1-cohuck@redhat.com> <20190301093902.27799-2-cohuck@redhat.com> <9e81af36-ebd2-671b-5256-90e8efaad6f2@linux.ibm.com> <20190408190747.12e3618b.cohuck@redhat.com> <20190410013434.7cea1971@oc2783563651> <4a692c11-edb2-93f9-7d8e-96a73a7ecdae@linux.ibm.com> <571b9f8c-cfb0-704e-ded4-8661a8136876@linux.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Archive: List-Post: To: Eric Farman Cc: Halil Pasic , Farhan Ali , linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, Alex Williamson , Pierre Morel , kvm@vger.kernel.org, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, qemu-s390x@nongnu.org List-ID: On Thu, 11 Apr 2019 17:27:42 -0400 Eric Farman wrote: > On 4/10/19 10:59 PM, Eric Farman wrote: > > > > > > On 4/9/19 7:34 PM, Halil Pasic wrote: > >> On Mon, 8 Apr 2019 19:07:47 +0200 > > ...snip... > > >> I'm just running fio on a pass-through DASD and on some virto-blk disks > >> in parallel. My QEMU is today's vfio-ccw-caps from your repo. > >> > >> I see stuff like this: > >> qemu-git: vfio-ccw: wirte I/O region failed with errno=16[1811/7332/0 > >> iops] [eta 26m:34s] > > > > Without knowing what the I/O was that failed, this is a guessing game. > > But I encountered something similar just now running fio. > > > > qemu: > > 2019-04-11T02:06:09.524838Z qemu-system-s390x: vfio-ccw: wirte I/O > > region failed with errno=16 > > ...snip... > > > From the associated I/O, I think this is fixed by a series I am nearly > > ready to send for review.  I'll try again with those fixes on top of the > > two series here, and report back. > > So, I've run enough combinations to feel comfortable saying that the > error (EBUSY) I saw last night (and presumably the one Halil saw) exists > in today's code and is not introduced by this series. It also appears > to be addressed by one of the patches in a series I'm working on, but > which that series still has some further problems. Sigh, there are too > many branches and too many interrupts. Great, thanks for checking! I know that feeling of being tangled in too many branches...