From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] Block pull request for- 4.11-rc1 To: Bart Van Assche , Christoph Hellwig References: <1D08B61A9CF0974AA09887BE32D889DA0A74F3@ULS-OP-MBXIP03.sdcorp.global.sandisk.com> <633d226d-cec3-a01f-a069-ffff307e9715@kernel.dk> <20170220073539.GA17687@lst.de> <1D08B61A9CF0974AA09887BE32D889DA0A8CBD@ULS-OP-MBXIP03.sdcorp.global.sandisk.com> Cc: Linus Torvalds , "linux-block@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Mike Snitzer From: Jens Axboe Message-ID: Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2017 09:32:38 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1D08B61A9CF0974AA09887BE32D889DA0A8CBD@ULS-OP-MBXIP03.sdcorp.global.sandisk.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 List-ID: On 02/20/2017 09:16 AM, Bart Van Assche wrote: > On 02/19/2017 11:35 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: >> On Sun, Feb 19, 2017 at 06:15:41PM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote: >>> That said, we will look into this again, of course. Christoph, any idea? >> >> No idea really - this seems so far away from the code touched, and there >> are no obvious signs for a memory scamble from another object touched >> that I think if it really bisects down to that issue it must be a timing >> issue. >> >> But reading Bart's message again: Did you actually bisect it down >> to the is commit? Or just test the whole tree? Between the 4.10-rc5 >> merge and all the block tree there might a few more likely suspects >> like the scsi bdi lifetime fixes that James mentioned. > > Hello Christoph, > > As far as I know Jens does not rebase his trees so we can use the commit > date to check which patch went in when. From the first of Jan's bdi patches: > > CommitDate: Thu Feb 2 08:18:41 2017 -0700 > > So the bdi patches went in several days after I reported the general protection > fault issue. > > In an e-mail of January 30th I wrote the following: "Running the srp-test > software against kernel 4.9.6 and kernel 4.10-rc5 went fine. With your > for-4.11/block branch (commit 400f73b23f457a) however I just ran into > the following warning: [ ... ]" That means that I did not hit the crash with > Jens' for-4.11/block branch but only with the for-next branch. The patches > on Jens' for-next branch after that commit that were applied before I ran > my test are: > > $ PAGER= git log --format=oneline 400f73b23f457a..fb045ca25cc7 block drivers/md/dm{,-mpath,-table}.[ch] > fb045ca25cc7b6d46368ab8221774489c2a81648 block: don't assign cmd_flags in __blk_rq_prep_clone > 82ed4db499b8598f16f8871261bff088d6b0597f block: split scsi_request out of struct request > 8ae94eb65be9425af4d57a4f4cfebfdf03081e93 block/bsg: move queue creation into bsg_setup_queue > eb8db831be80692bf4bda3dfc55001daf64ec299 dm: always defer request allocation to the owner of the request_queue > 6d247d7f71d1fa4b66a5f4da7b1daa21510d529b block: allow specifying size for extra command data > 5ea708d15a928f7a479987704203616d3274c03b block: simplify blk_init_allocated_queue > e6f7f93d58de74700f83dd0547dd4306248a093d block: fix elevator init check > f924ba70c1b12706c6679d793202e8f4c125f7ae Merge branch 'for-4.11/block' into for-4.11/rq-refactor > 88a7503376f4f3bf303c809d1a389739e1205614 blk-mq: Remove unused variable > bef13315e990fd3d3fb4c39013aefd53f06c3657 block: don't try to discard from __blkdev_issue_zeroout > f99e86485cc32cd16e5cc97f9bb0474f28608d84 block: Rename blk_queue_zone_size and bdev_zone_size > > Do you see any patch in the above list that does not belong to the "split > scsi passthrough fields out of struct request" series and that could have > caused the reported behavior change? Bart, since you are the only one that can reproduce this, can you just bisect your way through that series? -- Jens Axboe