From: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org>
To: Laurence Oberman <loberman@redhat.com>,
linux-rdma <linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org>,
"Dutile, Don" <ddutile@redhat.com>
Cc: Rupesh Girase <rgirase@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: 5.3-rc8 tests all pass with RDMA/SRP testing
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2019 10:59:09 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <c9e449ab-23d6-0036-7056-8c49e4efdf0b@acm.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3d41038fc1e720937606589d1ba91591486dd548.camel@redhat.com>
On 9/12/19 12:48 PM, Laurence Oberman wrote:
> My usual 3 month SRP test results show all is still well with SRP
> client drivers and multipath.
> I am still using 4.16 for the ib_srpt on the target server.
>
> 5.3-rc8 ib_srp CX4 100Gbit EDR tests
> direct and unbuffered, large and small I/O sizes
> port recovery with fault injection
>
> One small observation was that after fault injection it seemed to take
> longer to log back in, in that I needed to extend my sleep in the
> injection script to avoid some multipaths lose all paths.
>
> I was sleeping 30s between resets prior to this and I would log back in
> quick enough to not lose all paths.
> My sleep is now 60s
>
> #on ibclient server in /sys/class/srp_remote_ports, using echo 1 >
> delete for the particular port will simulate a port reset.
>
> #/sys/class/srp_remote_ports
> #[root@ibclient srp_remote_ports]# ls
> #port-1:1 port-2:1
> for d in /sys/class/srp_remote_ports/*
> do
> echo 1 > $d/delete
> sleep 60
> done
Hi Laurence,
This is weird. Has this behavior change been observed once or has it
been observed multiple times? I'm asking because in my tests I noticed
that there can be variation between tests depending on how much time the
SCSI error handler spends in its error recovery strategy.
Thanks,
Bart.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-09-17 17:59 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-09-12 19:48 5.3-rc8 tests all pass with RDMA/SRP testing Laurence Oberman
2019-09-17 17:59 ` Bart Van Assche [this message]
2019-09-18 16:17 ` Laurence Oberman
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=c9e449ab-23d6-0036-7056-8c49e4efdf0b@acm.org \
--to=bvanassche@acm.org \
--cc=ddutile@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=loberman@redhat.com \
--cc=rgirase@redhat.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).