[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [dm-devel] [PATCH UPDATED 4/5] dm: implement REQ_FLUSH/FUA support for request-based dm

On Thu, Sep 02 2010 at  6:24am -0400,
Tejun Heo <tj kernel org> wrote:

> Hello,
> On 09/02/2010 05:22 AM, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> >> But we can meet in the middle.  I've reordered the DM FLUSH+FUA patches
> >> so that the more intrusive bio-based relaxed ordering patch is at the
> >> very end.
> >>
> >> My hope was that the request-based deadlock I'm seeing would disappear
> >> if that relaxed ordering patch wasn't applied.  Unfortunately, I still
> >> see the hang.
> I don't think it would make any difference.  AFAICS, the patch doesn't
> touch anything requested based dm uses.

Right, I was stacking bio-based on request-based so it initially seemed
like they were related (based on traces I had seen).

> > Turns out I can reproduce the hang on a stock 2.6.36-rc3 (without _any_
> > FLUSH+FUA patches)!
> Hmmm... that's interesting.

Definitely, and I just tested a recent RHEL6 kernel.. it works perfectly

So now I'll be doing a git bisect to try to pinpoint where upstream went

> > I'll try to pin-point the root cause but I think my test is somehow
> > exposing a bug in my virt setup.
> > 
> > So this hang is definitely starting to look like a red herring.
> > 
> > Tejun,
> > 
> > This news should clear the way for you to re-post your patches.  I think
> > it would be best if you reordered the DM patches like I did here in this
> > series: http://people.redhat.com/msnitzer/patches/flush-fua/series
> > 
> > In particular, the dm-relax-ordering-of-bio-based-flush-implementation
> > patch should go at the end.  I think it makes for a more logical
> > evolution of the DM code.
> Sure, I'll.  I still think having the queue kicking mechanism is a
> good idea tho.  I'll integrate that into series, reorder and repost
> it.

Sounds good.


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]