Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 21 Jul 2021 16:00:56 +0800 | From | Ming Lei <> | Subject | Re: New warning in nvme_setup_discard |
| |
On Tue, Jul 20, 2021 at 11:05:29AM +0200, Oleksandr Natalenko wrote: > Hello, Ming. > > On pondělí 19. července 2021 8:27:29 CEST Oleksandr Natalenko wrote: > > On pondělí 19. července 2021 3:40:40 CEST Ming Lei wrote: > > > On Sat, Jul 17, 2021 at 02:35:14PM +0200, Oleksandr Natalenko wrote: > > > > On sobota 17. července 2021 14:19:59 CEST Oleksandr Natalenko wrote: > > > > > On sobota 17. července 2021 14:11:05 CEST Oleksandr Natalenko wrote: > > > > > > On sobota 17. července 2021 11:35:32 CEST Ming Lei wrote: > > > > > > > Maybe you need to check if the build is OK, I can't reproduce it > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > my > > > > > > > VM, and BFQ is still builtin: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [root@ktest-01 ~]# uname -a > > > > > > > Linux ktest-01 5.14.0-rc1+ #52 SMP Fri Jul 16 18:56:36 CST 2021 > > > > > > > x86_64 > > > > > > > x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux [root@ktest-01 ~]# cat > > > > > > > /sys/block/nvme0n1/queue/scheduler > > > > > > > [none] mq-deadline kyber bfq > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't think this is an issue with the build… BTW, with > > > > > > `initcall_debug`: > > > > > > > > > > > > ``` > > > > > > [ 0.902555] calling bfq_init+0x0/0x8b @ 1 > > > > > > [ 0.903448] initcall bfq_init+0x0/0x8b returned -28 after 507 > > > > > > usecs > > > > > > ``` > > > > > > > > > > > > -ENOSPC? Why? Also re-tested with the latest git tip, same result > > > > > > :(. > > > > > > > > > > OK, one extra pr_info, and I see this: > > > > > > > > > > ``` > > > > > [ 0.871180] blkcg_policy_register: BLKCG_MAX_POLS too small > > > > > [ 0.871612] blkcg_policy_register: -28 > > > > > ``` > > > > > > > > > > What does it mean please :)? The value seems to be hard-coded: > > > > > > > > > > ``` > > > > > include/linux/blkdev.h > > > > > 60:#define BLKCG_MAX_POLS 5 > > > > > ``` > > > > > > > > OK, after increasing this to 6 I've got my BFQ back. Please see [1]. > > > > > > > > [1] > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-block/20210717123328.945810-1-oleksandr@na > > > > t > > > > alenko.name/ > > > > > > OK, after you fixed the issue in blkcg_policy_register(), can you > > > reproduce the discard issue on v5.14-rc1 with BFQ applied? If yes, > > > can you test the patch I posted previously? > > > > Yes, the issue is reproducible with both v5.13.2 and v5.14-rc1. I haven't > > managed to reproduce it with v5.13.2+your patch. Now I will build v5.14- > > rc2+your patch and test further. > > I'm still hammering v5.14-rc2 + your patch, and I cannot reproduce the issue. > Given I do not have a reliable reproducer (I'm just firing up the kernel build, > and the issue pops up eventually, sooner or later, but usually within a couple > of first tries), for how long I should hammer it for your fix to be considered > proven?
You mentioned that the issue is reproducible with v5.14-rc, that means it can be always reproduced in limited time(suppose it is A). If the issue can't be reproduced any more after applying the patch in long enough time B(B >> A), we can think it is fixed by the patch.
For example, if A is one hour, we can set B as 5*A or bigger to simulate the long enough time.
Thanks, Ming
| |